Jack-Booted “Progressives”

More top response to methinks, but so it doesn't get squished(Cafe Hayek plz fix!)

The issue of adopting children is not about the gays and denying gays rights. It's about the best interest of the child. Did you know that it's also virtually impossible for a 40 year old woman to adopt a child? A single 45 year old woman CANNOT adopt a child. It is often difficult for a white couple to adopt a black child in the United States - even though there is an abundance of them. The restrictions are severe and all in the name of the best interest of the child. Now, just for the record, in my completely unqualified opinion, I think children are better off with anyone who is willing to offer them love - gay, straight, single, whatever. The result of all this "looking out for the best interest of the child" is that children are bounced around in the foster care system until they're totally destroyed. How can that be better in any way than a black child growing up with white parents or with a gay couple? But singling out homosexuality from the long list of idiotic prohibitions that keep children from getting adopted into loving homes and using this as a basis for your claim that this is making gays second class citizens is just wrong. Are white couples second class citizens? Are middle aged women? Certainly not. Gays are treated equally in this case - they are equally screwed.

What about denying adoption to late 20-something gay couple? You obviously are just biased against gays that you would privilege a straight couple adopting over a gay one.

Marriage is a bigger issue because marriage is a cultural and legal institution that produces children. A gay couple cannot produce children. Personally, I think gay couples have some issues that are very different from heterosexual couples and a body of law should be created to deal specifically with those issues. Our current family law is borne of long experience with traditional marriage and those experiences don't necessarily apply to issues faced by gay couples. I also think that it's not necessarily a great idea to simply expand the current legal definition of "marriage" lest it sets a precedent which would eventually render the institution meaningless. But, taking care to ensure that needs are met and institutions don't lose meaning doesn't mean that most people wish to impose hardships on gay couples. Even a lot of bible thumpers are far more concerned about retaining the cultural meaning of "marriage" and ensuring it doesn't expand into something ridiculous than taking anything away from gay people - although, the "it's adam and eve, not adam and steve" crowd get all the camera time.

Hmm yet we allow childless straights to be married. Especially ones who have no intention of procreating. Why not deny them the marriage certificate since the GOAL of marriage in your opinion is to encourage stable family unit for children. You're bigotry is getting in the way of logic.

I would respond to your inane drivel, but I sprained my eyeballs rolling them as I skimmed your posts.

I'll post up here since CH is squishing the comments

Methinks said:

A.) I don't call myself a libertarian. Danny paints everyone he wants with that brush. I don't call myself anything.

Well you're being obtuse by saying you don't identify with any philosophical label. The same charge you level at DK.

B.) When did I say I was against gay people having rights?
Umm it was implicitly implied when you railed against pro-gay initiatives as "minority imposing it's will on the majority".

C.) What are "gay rights" and why should gays have different rights than everyone else?

The right to get a state marriage the same as for straights. Non-discrimination in hospital visits and the same rights of inheritence, adoption rights.

D.) How are gays treated as second class citizens? Are they not allowed to use the same water fountains? Public facilities? What are you talking about?

In all the above items I listed in (c). Sure maybe in NY State gays have all the rights, but there are many states in which gays are 2nd class citizens.

I think people are throwing around buzz words like "gay rights" and "oppression" and "second class citizen" without stopping to think what exactly that means.

I think you are being intentionally obtuse. Should I call you disingenuous as well?

Methinks - why do you have a problem with a minority imposing gay-rights against the "social mores" of the country, but a minority doing away with progressive taxation is A-ok?

I don't.

The problem is you like arguing straw men and being overly deceitful.

No. The problem is that you can't understand what you read.

BTW, the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to levy income taxes, but not progressive. It's the social mores of the nation that allows Congress to make them progressive.

DK: Pesky minorities - demanding they be treated equitably! How dare they!

He has a point about that. Methinks said that democracy is horrible because the majority + 1 vote themselves the wealth of the productive. But at the same time she has a problem with pro-gay initiatives, because?

I'm not sure SHE has a problem with pro-gay initiatives. I think she just (mistakenly) thinks that they are forcing their social mores on the majority. In most cases where these initiatives have been successful, it's absolutely not the case. A majority has demanded equal treatment. It's not just the five or ten percent of the population that is gay that has demanded it - it's the majority of voters, gay or straight.

But let's say it is just the minority of gays demanding a change. So? If a majority's social mores leads them to violate the rights of gay people should we mock the gay minority for wanting to change the laws? Of course not.

Thank God the gay minority isn't fighting alone on this - but if they were it wouldn't change anything.

"in most cases where these initiatives have been successful, it's absolutely not the case. A majority has demanded equal treatment."

That's not true, Daniel. In most cases, where allowing gay marriage has been put to the population, it has been voted down. Initiatives have succeeded only through the courts. Personally, I think the gay rights activists have taken the wrong approach in this debate and created a lot more obstacles for themselves than they should have.

"But let's say it is just the minority of gays demanding a change. So? If a majority's social mores leads them to violate the rights of gay people should we mock the gay minority for wanting to change the laws? Of course not. "

Well done. But, if the majority decides to vote to rob people making $1MM of $800K of it, vs. taxing the rest of the population at a rate of 20%, then you're okay with that and you have a million justifications for why that money really belongs to all of us, thus from each according to his ability and to each according to his need. A saying which you accused Marx of giving a bad name instead of recognizing it for the stupidity that it is.

And THAT - not whether or not gay people should have rights and to be treated with the respect and dignity afforded everyone else - is the point.

So you support putting basic civil rights up to a vote? Well I got news for you, progressive income taxes are supported by the majority of people - live with it!

Also it sounds like you are being spiteful. So because your rights are being violated through progressive taxation, you will sign on for violating gay rights as revenge.

Arrow, I'm starting to think you're a bit light in the IQ department. You need to not only read, but comprehend. Thoughtlessly jumping to conclusions just makes you look stupid.

DK - I do sense that methinks is being agitative for the sake of it when it comes to you. However she does have a point that many times things have been explained to you on other threads only to find that you come back to the default position on a new thread. That is very infuriating and you should be more considerate.

If I had any clue what she was talking about in that case, I'd be happy to address it and admit the back-tracking. I'm honestly in the dark about what she and you are refering to you - but you both obviously know what you're talking about, so feel free to share.

A lot of people see what I think as "back-tracking" because they can't conceive of someone that isn't on one extreme or the other. The fact that I see some value and some costs to many different potential policies seems inconsistent to them. I don't know why they see it that way.

We see backtracking because you find it virtually impossible to offer an opinion that doesn't include the word, "however".

Well the problem you have with methinks is that you have lost credibility and she has no incentive to keep pointing out what you've done that annoys her. You just have to accept it and move on.

Lost credibility with her. It's an important distinction :)

She keeps mentioning it to me so I just figure she's expecting me to address it somehow. My hands are tied on that one.

Most everyone supports some thuggery. Just for different purposes.

Thuggish is a great word for this - this is like a vote and it shouldn't be exposed.

But the outrage on Will's part is comical. He reserves his harshest adjectives for a movement to get petition signers names revealed, and not the people who use the power of the state to treat gays like second-class citizens? If anyone is "jack-booted" in this particular case, the infraction of the people wanting the names seems minor in comparison to the people using the law to bully gay Washingtonians.

Will misses the forest for the trees if his true concern is bullying and intimidation.

Gays as second class citizens? How are they treated any more like second-class citizens than the most productive members of this society?

You have no problem at all with the majority voting to rob the most productive of the right to the fruits of their labour, but you're quick to squeak when a minority of gays want to forcibly change social norms to suit their liking.

It's not Will who misses the forest for the trees. It's you.

1. This is state law. The ones trying to change the social norms to suit their liking are those doing the referendum to send same-sex unions in Washington. And more power to them for trying - I have no problem with changing social mores.

2. I'm not going to try to convince you that the mere existence of taxes isn't tantamount to theft - but I will say that it's not missing the forest for the trees. George Will was specifically talking about same-sex marriage. To talk about it and miss the thuggishness against gays IS to miss the forest for the trees (and that's honestly something I thought more libertarians would agree with me on!). Me failing to talk about tax policy isn't missing the forest for the trees on my part - it's a non sequitor on your part.

I'm not talking about taxes in general, I'm talking about progressive taxes.

It's not a non-sequitor. I'm simply pointing out that you and your fellow "progressives" and "liberals" are hypocrites.

You miss the forest for the trees on other issues. Oh, the irony.

I'm not a progressive or a liberal, and to repeat taxes have nothing to do with referenda on gay marriage.

It's unsurprising that the point sailed so far above your head even though it was spoon fed to you. Never mind.

It's why we call him disingenuous Khuehn. Whatever happens to be law is OK with him if he approves.

No, not at all. My only point is Methinks was acting as if a small minority of gays was imposing their social mores on everyone else. The fact of the matter is just the opposite. A small minority of gays plus a large number of non-gays already agreed on this. If any minority is imposing their social mores in Washington state, it's the petition signers.

That doesn't make the state right or the petitioners wrong - it just invalidates Methinks's point that somehow this is ten percent of the population imposing something on the rest of us. It's not.

Oh, let's bludgeon the point, shall we?

My point is that you have no problem with the majority asserting its dominance over a minority if the issue is robbing the minority of the right to the product of their labour as progressive taxes do. A person who produces $10MM income has a right to an ever decreasing share of it and you have a right to an increasing share of his labour you have laboured as "fair" in the past. You don't consider the subjugation of the productive to the less productive second class citizenship. Yet, you somehow concoct that gays are second class citizens because some people are against homosexuality - even though they lack the legal right to punish them for it. I don't think you know what a second class citizen is. You're a hypocrite.

In your imagination, I was "acting like" something blah blah blah....it's too inane to address. I fully expect this post to sail over your head.

And remember - a person's productivity is determind by what sort of capital is mixed with their labor. It's not like one person is inherently more productive than another person.

hmmm....well, let's see. I think we can assume that the capital in the country is generally available to those who can produce the most wealth with it. Is that so? If that's so, then progressive taxation would create a disincentive to use this capital productively since the most productive people will have no incentive to work their ass off to give it to you. Capital by itself doesn't produce wealth. And when there is no incentive to use capital to produce wealth, it leaves.

It's not like one person is inherently more productive than another person.

Well, except our dear leader. He can create and save jobs and single handedly pull us out of the jaws of another great depression. I remember this lesson from Soviet schools. We are all exactly alike. No person is different from another. I'm sure if you were running my company, your return would be at least as high as mine because I'm not inherently better at using the capital than you are.

And where will you take your capital to flee? Singapore? I bet you wouldn't like to live there. Nah, you want to live in Manhattan with all the perks, but not the responsibilities.

When you can find a perk, please let me know. What responsibility to I have to you? For a libertarian, you sure are a statist little monkey.

RE: "In your imagination, I was "acting like" something blah blah blah...."

My imagination, huh? I can quote you if you'd like: "you're quick to squeak when a minority of gays want to forcibly change social norms to suit their liking"

Pesky minorities - demanding they be treated equitably! How dare they!

OK - you really seem eager for me to talk about taxes.

I'm not sure tax law distinguishes between productivity levels. I would agree wage rates are largely determined by marginal productivity. But I don't think this has anything to do with a progressive tax. The point of a progressive tax is to make sure that the burden of a tax weighed equally on all members of society. Back before Jevons, Walras, Edgeworth, Marshall, and the rest of the Marginal Revolution, you might get away with arguing that a flat rate ensures that everyone shares the burden of taxation equally. We know better now, and because we know better a lot of people take this microeconomic insight and apply it to tax policy.

"Pesky minorities - demanding they be treated equitably! How dare they!"

Boy, you're very confused. Social norms cannot be forced and do not constitute second class treatment under the law.

I love your "we know better now" argument to justify the second class status for wealth creators. I've seen your argument for massively progressive taxes before and I've also seen you back away from supporting that idea when you were challenged - only to bring it up in a fresh thread. Pretty typical.

I guess I could say that after the bible and Koran, "we know better" that gays are just wrong. (BTW, not a position I hold. I couldn't give to craps about a person's sexual orientation).

Methinks - but progressive income taxes are part of America's social mores, just as much as traditional marriages is. Why do you pretend otherwise?

Of course social mores can't be forced and do not constitute second class treatment. They can still be mocked by me in a blog post.

You might have to remind me about how "backed away". I think Edgeworth's argument is a very good one, and that it is a necessary argument to consider, but not sufficient to consider in and of itself when making tax policy. Is that what you mean by "backed away"? If that's what you mean, then I never backed away because I've never considered the argument in and of itself sufficient.

Disingenuous kuehn, the voters of WA can always vote the anti-gay initiative down. So you're assertion that a minority can thrust itself upon the majority is laughable. It can only pass with 50% + 1.

And what does that change? Should I not be critical of a group that wants to have a referenda on whether all conservatives should be rounded up into slave labor camps? I'd be very critical of them imposing their political mores on me, despite the fact that they have no chance of success.

They're trying to impose their social mores - I have no sense of whether or not they're going to be successful.

But I'm glad I argued you back from the ledge of agreeing with Methinks about the gays imposing their social mores on people - back to the more sensible argument that this specific referendum won't succeed. It makes sense to me - I honestly know next to nothing about Washington's political climate, but I agree with you this probably won't succeed.

BTW, just to help you out....

I assumed that the reason you claimed gays get second class citizen treatment is the marriage issue. Since I'm not aware that gays are denied the rights other citizens have, I assumed it was that. Otherwise, your assertion just seems...uh..."stupid" is the best adjective.

Until recently it was illegal in many states for people to have gay sex. Gays are restricted from military service. Gay partners are not afforded the same rights to immigrate. Gay partners are not given the same rights to adopt and in some states an individual gay person can't adopt. And then of course there are all sorts of rights that are derivative from the right to be married.

And it goes even beyond that - like the Civil Rights movement, it's not only about what the state prohibits - it's a cultural statement as well. You can't separate these two. Most (I suppose not all) people who think the state should treat gays equally would also tell their neighbor they think they should treat gays equally.

Well, thanks for that, Danny, because that's much clearer.

I don't think sodomy is "gay sex" in particular. I think that one covers everyone - except lesbians. That's totally legal!! No sodomy. As you probably guessed, I'm not for any government involvement in the department of bumping uglies. If government can't get involved, then it's pretty difficult for private individuals to get involved without violating the law.

The issue of adopting children is not about the gays and denying gays rights. It's about the best interest of the child. Did you know that it's also virtually impossible for a 40 year old woman to adopt a child? A single 45 year old woman CANNOT adopt a child. It is often difficult for a white couple to adopt a black child in the United States - even though there is an abundance of them. The restrictions are severe and all in the name of the best interest of the child. Now, just for the record, in my completely unqualified opinion, I think children are better off with anyone who is willing to offer them love - gay, straight, single, whatever. The result of all this "looking out for the best interest of the child" is that children are bounced around in the foster care system until they're totally destroyed. How can that be better in any way than a black child growing up with white parents or with a gay couple? But singling out homosexuality from the long list of idiotic prohibitions that keep children from getting adopted into loving homes and using this as a basis for your claim that this is making gays second class citizens is just wrong. Are white couples second class citizens? Are middle aged women? Certainly not. Gays are treated equally in this case - they are equally screwed.

Marriage is a bigger issue because marriage is a cultural and legal institution that produces children. A gay couple cannot produce children. Personally, I think gay couples have some issues that are very different from heterosexual couples and a body of law should be created to deal specifically with those issues. Our current family law is borne of long experience with traditional marriage and those experiences don't necessarily apply to issues faced by gay couples. I also think that it's not necessarily a great idea to simply expand the current legal definition of "marriage" lest it sets a precedent which would eventually render the institution meaningless. But, taking care to ensure that needs are met and institutions don't lose meaning doesn't mean that most people wish to impose hardships on gay couples. Even a lot of bible thumpers are far more concerned about retaining the cultural meaning of "marriage" and ensuring it doesn't expand into something ridiculous than taking anything away from gay people - although, the "it's adam and eve, not adam and steve" crowd get all the camera time.

Gays can serve in the military, but they can't also march in the gay pride parade on base. But, that is the most specifically anti-gay, specifically exclusionary example of all your examples.

Of course, my problem is that you jump to the aid of one minority but not another.

But I'm glad I argued you back from the ledge of agreeing with Methinks about the gays imposing their social mores on people

Disingenous Kuehn, you claimed that gays are second class citizens, not I. Seems you've already stepped off the ledge and severely damaged your head. Twisting arguments around until the look the way you like is cute, but transparent.

I claimed they are treated like second class citizens, not that they are second class citizens. Allow me to quote what you said: "you're quick to squeak when a minority of gays want to forcibly change social norms to suit their liking"

You're so out of touch with the way that conservatives have used the state to oppress gays that you actually believe it's just a "minority of gays" that are mad about this and want to change the way society is structured over it. It reminds me of that Rush Limbaugh diatribe: "They are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?".

a.) gays are a minority of the population, are they not?

b.) I'm completely out of touch with the way conservatives have been oppressing these poor gays. Also, my gay friends are similarly out of touch. So, inform me. Please. What Rush Limbaugh has to say about any of this is irrelevant to me. I know that you leftards are obsessed with the man, though why this is so is a mystery to me.

DK: you are correct in that many do treat gays as 2nd class citizens, even if the state doesn't. But that will change soon all across the country as pro-gay initiatives continue to pass. I honestly don't get how methinks calls herself a libertarian and yet is anti-gay rights.

A.) I don't call myself a libertarian. Danny paints everyone he wants with that brush. I don't call myself anything.

B.) When did I say I was against gay people having rights?

C.) What are "gay rights" and why should gays have different rights than everyone else?

D.) How are gays treated as second class citizens? Are they not allowed to use the same water fountains? Public facilities? What are you talking about?

I think people are throwing around buzz words like "gay rights" and "oppression" and "second class citizen" without stopping to think what exactly that means.

I fully acknowledge this may be too self-absorbed, but I think a lot of times she just disagrees with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. I don't get the impression she opposes gay marriage... she just made a statement early on that is painting her into a corner now, and I'm fully exploiting that statement.

If I didn't make my initial point about George Will missing the forest for the trees, and the discussion was initiated by someone else about gay rights, I'm guessing she'd be on the pro-gay rights side and making the same arguments you and I are making now - because her points have been about the nature of the debate, not the validity of gay rights.

let me be clear: you're being self-indulgent.

I don't know what corner you imagine I painted myself into, but I'm sure you've imagined quite a corner.

And in this same vein - the comparison of the petitioners to the NAACP was especially unfortunate. The petitioners, while they certainly retain their right to privacy and association, don't deserve the shining comparison to the role the NAACP played in the Civil Rights movement.

"The petitioners, while they certainly retain their right to privacy and association, don't deserve the shining comparison to the role the NAACP played in the Civil Rights movement."

A purely subjective statement. What about gay rights? Remember that discrimination against minorities was a State enterprise. It couldn't happen except through the power of the State, Walter Williams' shows time and time again that the free market is the only place where everyman is truly equal.

They are deserving of the same right to privacy. You don't get to decide the moral worth of the signers.

That's what I said - the signers definitely deserve a right to privacy. That's what I lead with!

"This can have no other purpose than to make it possible to harass those signers."

Just to play devil's advocate here, if a petition is a document that compels the placement of a referendum on a ballot, how do you verify that that the petition signers are valid and not from the graveyard? Remember, though petitions seem to be initiated by conservatives in a majority of times forcing a vote on a liberal agenda or a liberal state of affairs, this this not 100% so. Do petitioners from the graveyard or altzheimers homes need to be identified as to life and competency?

I know that when I voted here in Texas and in Utah long ago, I had to show my driver's license in order to register, and then again when I went to the proper precinct to vote.

What is the answer? Here in Texas, I believe, there is a signature verification process, so how does that work without a name and a means of identification?

I think there is an easier way to handle thuggish progressives, but then if I expressed that I'd be accused of being a vigalante....not that I'd give a shit.

Really?

Law forcing people who would coerce others through referendums to be named... and you are against it? In know conservative thought is in vogue now, but you should probably think about these things before you post them.

Then from now on anyone who sign to get a tax-increase referendum should have all their private info available to all, since that's coercion too. Agreed?

Absolutely. That's the thrust of my argument. And fuck your grammar.

touché, PEACE!

Please use educated English grammar. I have no clue what you just said.

The proposal is about petition signers, not referendum voters.

If voters find an referendum initiative to be odious, they can vote against it.

If the petition wants to have any weight it must disclose those who sign in. That's the whole point of a petition. Otherwise there is no way to verify against repeats and fakes, unless we concoct another government agency to track that.

The secret ballot is half the reason why we have a government who sees fit to take from 49% to give to 51%.

I think there's a difference between somebody verifying the petitioners and posting the petitioners on the internet.

Your argument would apply to elections too - Bush v. Gore was close. Do you think the solution is to post all Floridian's votes on the internet? I don't think so.

The purpose of all elections and government is to coerce others. Yes, we should know exactly who would like to take form us what is not theirs.

You don't see how that in and of itself is coercive?

Look - you're clearly an adherent to this anti-democratic strain of libertarianism. Fine. But if elections are so dangerous in your mind, then you should be opposing the very existence of elections - not advocating a version of elections that is even more coercive than the version we have now.

Furthermore, what I always find interesting about the use of the term democracy is how it is used by both liberals and conservatives as a means justify just about anything as well as an explanation for anything. Going to war against Iraq? Well, its about democracy! Creating a "public option?" Well, its about democracy!

Democracy has always been a multi-edged doctrine, dogma, intellectual movement, with costs and benefits, but is used too often in a content free fashion.

Excellently stated!

Hey, I do enjoy being excellent from time to time.

Are you suggesting that there is no legitimate reason to be opposed to the secret ballot? It seems to me that the secret ballot - while it solves some problems - creates some problems as well.

As for being anti-democratic; everyone in their right mind is to some degree or another anti-democratic. I myself wonder the merits of democracy given the general level of ignorance found in the voting public. That doesn't mean that one should be for a dictatorship or some other centralized form of government; it means (to me) that political power should be decentralized and that we should rely far less on politics for decision making.

I agree with the thrust of your second paragraph but would phrase it this way - "everyone in their right mind is aware that democracy isn't perfect and has many faults". I'm not sure I'd ever mess around with calling myself "anti-democratic" given the lack of many other viable options. However, "democracy" has many uses as a word. In one sense, the U.S. isn't a democracy at all so it's pointless to even talk about it - we're a republic. But our government is "democratic" in the same sense that we are "liberal" or "secular" or "tolerant". The will of the people rules in the United States - it is institutionally circumscribed by a bill of rights, by republican representation, etc. etc. - so that institutionally the government is not democratic, but conceptually it is. So I guess to be more precise I am "anti-democratic" if we're talking about an institutional framework, but not when it comes to broad principles of governance.

As for the secret ballot... I don't know what you mean when you say that it creates problems. Put it this way - it seems to me that there are no problems associated with a secret ballot that removing that secrecy would solve, and removing that secrecy would in fact create a lot of new problems.

I am anti-democratic in the sense that I have concluded that markets are generally better at sorting out social problems, creating social cohesion, etc. than "democracy" is.

You have yet to explain how it is more coercive. It is verifiable and transparent, as all government action should be.

Explain why you think you have a right to know what my vote is? How are you not coercing me by forcing me to tell you who I will vote for tomorrow, in Virginia's elections. You have no right to that information.

If it's a vote to tax people with the Name NathanS then I absolutely have the right to see who is voting for it.

I agree, any measure that is coercive should require all names be released. Not just right-wing measures that ACORN hates.

See George Will's article.

It uses the power of the state to expose private information that nobody else has a right to learn, and in doing so it makes the likelihood of bullying very real.

It's the same reason why "card check" for unions is coercive and wrong.

I can see we're starting to get somewhere! I honestly don't see why methinks should despise you so much. You seem to be consistently more pro-libertarian then socialist.

A libertarian socialist?

"Dogs and cat living together...mass hysteria!"

I was thinking of the same thing, Dan's recent posts don't seem like the same Dan that likes to be the contrarian on most issues.

Has everyone gone nuts. Do we as Americans have any rights to privacy at all. Let's not forget what Judge Brandeis also said, that we have the right to be left alone.

It is likely that a government agency already does that. The registrar of voters office is supposed to verify signatures on petitions.

At least that's how they do it in Maryland and California.

In fact, I think it likely that petition signatures are checked more thoroughly than election ballots.

I think this might actually be a very interesting experiment, extended to general voting, not just referenda.

We could find out how many dead people vote for Jon Corzine on Tuesday.

Seems highly unconstitutional, though.

I don't like the idea of the State forcing me to begin with, so using the state to force the names of people, for the purposes of public humiliation (like the Prop 8 names) is wrong.
There needs to be a balance between protecting the rights of individual citizens and "transparency." When a person's safety and well being are at issue, safety trumps transparency. But there lies the rub, there are a bunch of people that will use the "safety" argument to explicitly get out of disclosure.
No one ever said life was easy or fair.