A handout for statists

[integral]

A handout for statists by Stefan Molyneux.

(I hope your not offended Nat...)
ps. Dan can you get this guy on to the Reasoning Show? I would be like you guys to discuss whether a stateless society is the only type of society in line with the rational man.

[Toban]

Molyneux seems pretty smart. He nicely refuted the argument for government in that article. I found his website: http://www.freedomainradio.com. I see he's a philosopher and a true atheist as well. He upholds logic and reason too. I think he'd make a good guest on the reasoning show. Maybe QRS could teach him about causation... he appears to believe in free will.

[Nick]

I imagine he's someone who would be familiar with Skype too.

[Unidian]

Statist: Yes, violence is wrong – except in self-defense.

Me: Agreed, except in self-defense.

This is where it falls down right at the outset. If taxation is defined as "violence," then it is no bigger a stretch to suppose that a great many people rely on taxation for self-defense. Granny isn't going to survive for long when she is eating cat food and living under an overpass, you know. Her survival is dependent on her social security check, and by ensuring its arrival she is certainly defending herself in a very real sense.

This "Handout for Statists" is certainly not a compelling argument, and is in fact less impressive than most libertarian propaganda.

Persons without a viable means of self-support like to have food on their table just as anyone else does. And, if we are going to call this a "civilization" rather than a social Darwinist cluster-funk, such persons are well within their rights to defend their means of survival with their votes and, if necessary, with force. It shouldn't have to come to that, but it does come to that because of people like this Molyneux, whose distilled message those incapable of self-sufficiency is essentially "go die."

It isn't "statists" who make force and violence necessary. It is those within a society who selfishly insist on denying and/or shirking their moral obligations. This selfishness compels the rest of us to act forcefully in order to ensure the survival of those the social and economic Darwinists would allow to die.

(I hope your not offended Nat...)

I'm not angry or upset, but of course I'm offended. Why shouldn't I be? How could I not be? Molyneux and those like him are painting me and those on my side of the political fence as violent criminals who are responsible for pretty much every evil in society, and in addition to that, he wants to take away the food on my table and the roof over my head. In essence, he wants me and millions of others to "sink or swim," knowing full well that a great many of us will sink. What's not to be offended about? This man wants to play roulette with my life and millions of others. If I've offended him (and/or you) in return by pointing this out, then at least I haven't suggested taking away your very means of survival.

If QRS does have this guy on (which I doubt), I hope that they will also have someone to represent the so-called "statist" camp. I'd be willing to do it if no one better could be found. But given Dan's political views (which are quite similar to mine in many respects) and the political apathy of David and Kevin, I think the chances of QRS giving this guy a soapbox are fairly slim. Those who imagine QRS being into this sort of thing are in for a disappointment, I think.

[Dave Toast]

I watched and listened to a lot of this guy's podcasts a year or two ago. He's big into his politics but he's also big into philosophy, or at least well schooled. He'd doubtless make a good guest for a podcast with his infectious energy but he'd need steering away from the whole libertarianism, free market thing.

Going off what I know of him, he'd be up for it no doubt.

[Isaac]

Statist: Yes, violence is wrong – except in self-defense.

Me: Agreed, except in self-defense.

This is where it falls down right at the outset. If taxation is defined as "violence," then it is no bigger a stretch to suppose that a great many people rely on taxation for self-defense. Granny isn't going to survive for long when she is eating cat food and living under an overpass, you know. Her survival is dependent on her social security check

What has you so convinced that the free market wouldn't beget privatized charity organizations to support those incapable of self-sufficiency?

Persons without a viable means of self-support like to have food on their table just as anyone else does. And, if we are going to call this a "civilization" rather than a social Darwinist cluster-funk, such persons are well within their rights to defend their means of survival with their votes and, if necessary, with force. It shouldn't have to come to that, but it does come to that because of people like this Molyneux, whose distilled message those incapable of self-sufficiency is essentially "go die."

How do you know a guy like Molyneux wouldn't donate money to support those in need?

It isn't "statists" who make force and violence necessary. It is those within a society who selfishly insist on denying and/or shirking their moral obligations. This selfishness compels the rest of us to act forcefully in order to ensure the survival of those the social and economic Darwinists would allow to die.

Do you really think the majority of people are actually like that? Don't you think most people would donate enough money to charity?

[Unidian]

What has you so convinced that the free market wouldn't beget privatized charity organizations to support those incapable of self-sufficiency?

History.

How do you know a guy like Molyneux wouldn't donate money to support those in need?

I don't. And maybe he would. But probability doesn't support it.

Do you really think the majority of people are actually like that? Don't you think most people would donate enough money to charity?

Nope. If voluntary charity were sufficient, welfare programs would never be discussed.

[Isaac]

Don't you think most people would donate enough money to charity?

Nope. If voluntary charity were sufficient, welfare programs would never be discussed.

Who is initiating discussion of welfare programs? An interest in establishing welfare seems to arise without coercion. Under a free market Anarchy, there will inevitably be those who feel welfare is important, and maybe such individuals, through marketing and promotion, might arouse the sympathy of a sufficient chunk of the population.

What has you so convinced that the free market wouldn't beget privatized charity organizations to support those incapable of self-sufficiency?

History.

Care to cite any specific examples?

As far as I can see, history shows that governments are more likely to commit atrocities. Maybe greater individual freedom will lead to a more benign culture.

[Unidian]

Why do you assume that government and "individual freedom" are antonyms?

The correct function of government, in my view, is to prevent one man from being enslaved by another. However, it is quite likely that we disagree as to what constitutes enslavement.

[Isaac]

Why do you assume that government and "individual freedom" are antonyms?

My money is being taken against my will to fund the war in Iraq. Because of government, I don't have the freedom to spend my money how I deem best.

The correct function of government, in my view, is to prevent one man from being enslaved by another.

It seems to me that improvements, morally speaking, always originate from individual initiative, whereas the greatest atrocities are committed by government. I mean, just consider for a moment how government condoned slavery of blacks, and it was the initiative of non government agents which brought about a revolution.

[Unidian]

Actually, as any Southerner will tell you, it was Lincoln's unprecedented expansion of federal power and his uncompromising authoritarian stance that ended slavery. Of course, Southerners will also insist that ending slavery was never the point, but that's another issue. It was ended, and it was ended by government.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Unidian,

Actually, as any Southerner will tell you, it was Lincoln's unprecedented expansion of federal power and his uncompromising authoritarian stance that ended slavery. Of course, Southerners will also insist that ending slavery was never the point, but that's another issue. It was ended, and it was ended by government.

That is the American version of history; the truth is that Slavery in the US could have ended easily without a war at all, and without much government intervention. In other countries that ended slavery, the slavery’s freedom was simply bought out by government and big businesses that supported the cause, and would profit from eliminating slave labor that they were trying to compete with. For instance: In New York at the time, which was much more advanced morally, there were enough businesses on side of the blacks to totally pay out the southerners. That is how it happened in many other areas of the world.

The reason for the war is that the government was heavily corrupted by banking interests who wanted to profit from an unnecessary war, sound familiar?

Nope. If voluntary charity were sufficient, welfare programs would never be discussed.

Without welfare, it is almost impossible to starve to death in the US, there are soup kitchens, food banks, charity organizations, friends, family, and so on….Welfare is leeching off the labor of others, and it should only be done if it is absolutely neccessary - IE: for sickness, injury, mental handicap, but not for being an intellectual.

Unidian, being an intellectual doesn’t give you a natural entitlement to the welfare system, that is one of the reasons for the American recession, too many people abusing social programs. The Mexicans are doing the same thing in your country, they're skipping the border, having children on US soil, and then going on welfare. It is simply not sustainable.

The system cannot sustain itself especially if increasing numbers of intellectuals adopt your attitude. Life is unfair and fairly brutal, that is for certain, but leeching off another’s labor is getting a free ride, It is making your life easier at the expense of making someone else’s more difficult.

one you could at least work a part-time job to attempt to survive. The economic reality is that labor is needed to sustain ones own existence, and to deny that reality is making someone else’s life more difficult. In an ideal society, with a very limited government, with very few social programs, advanced technology, and a minimalist attitude, one could probably live comfortably in a small bachelor apartment only working 2-3 of 7 days of the week.

But if you did that Unidian, you might have to give up some of those feminine attachments and comfortable habits that you’ve grown to love….

[Unidian]

Unidian, I’m sorry, but being an intellectual doesn’t give you a natural entitlement to the welfare system

Of course it doesn't. Being human does.

Without welfare, it is almost impossible to starve to death in the US, there are soup kitchens, food banks, charity organizations, friends, family, and so on….Welfare is leeching off the labor of others, and it should only be done if it is absolutely needs to. IE: for sickness, injury, mental handicap, but not for being an intellectual.

I think it should be available if one is unsuited to economic work for any reason, including reasons of personality, temperament, etc.

Unidian, I’m sorry, but being an intellectual doesn’t give you a natural entitlement to the welfare system, that is one of the reasons for the American recession, too many people abusing social programs.

You'd have to support this Sean Hannity talking point with actual data. I have yet to see any serious economic analysis which suggests that "abusing social programs" at current levels has more than a negligible effect on the overall economy.

Life is unfair and fairly brutal, that is for certain, but leeching off another’s welfare is getting a free ride based on the work of others.

Self-contradictory. Letting people starve is excused as natural and in line with the inherent unfairness and brutality of life, but "absuing social programs" somehow isn't? If life is unfair, then what you call "leeching" would simply be another aspect of that inherent unfairness. Shouldn't you hand-wave it away as you do homelessness?

It is making your life easier at the expense of making someone else’s more difficult.

Well, life's unfair and tough right? Shouldn't you get over it?

Accepting Welfare when you could at least work a part-time job is not totally facing reality.

You aren't an authority on who can and cannot work. Doctors and disability examiners are.

The economic reality is that labor is needed to sustain ones own existence

No, the economic reality is actually that labor is NOT required to sustain one's existence. That's what you guys are upset about, remember? All the "leechers" disproving the imaginary "work or die" law. They don't work, and yet they aren't dead. That's reality, as much as you might dislike it.

In an ideal society, with a very limited government, very few unnecessary programs, advanced technology, and a minimalist attitude, one could probably live comfortably in a small bachelor apartment only working 2-3 of 7 days of the week.

You think? Sounds pretty decent to me. Certainly better than the current fetish for 40-60 hour weeks. But how on Earth could this happen when corporations are unregulated and free to install even more brainwashing? I don't think your "ideal society" would work out. I forsee 60 hour weeks becoming 90 hour weeks when corporations are given cultural carte blanche.

But if you did that Unidian, you might have to give up some of those feminine attachments and comfortable habits that you’ve grown to love….

Yeah, I live a fantastically self-indulgent life. It's a non-stop party with all the luxuries $150 a week can buy. Very "feminine" indeed. Last week, I finally replaced a stove that had sat broken and unusable in the kitchen for months. Might as well be Paris Hilton, with spending sprees like that.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Unidian,

I think it should be available if one is unsuited to economic work for any reason, including reasons of personality, temperament, etc.

If you truly believe you are unable to work in any capacity then I suppose nothing can be done, but most intellectuals with any degree of consciousness do not want to work because of the uncomfortable nature of work, and being in relationship with annoying humans. However, one could argue that a little work builds character, and keeps one in touch with the immediate nature of reality instead of isolating oneself to a life of pleasurable comforts and free handouts without any sort of effort. One beef I have is that welfare conditions people to bad habits over time…Being free of bad habits is key, and a part-time job can provide some discipline and positive conditioning into ones life, which builds character…

Well, life's unfair and tough right? Shouldn't you get over it?

The burdens should be distributed to everyone to a certain degree, and if your personality can only handle a small burden, then that is all that should be given to you. If you cannot handle any burden at all then that is a different story, and it is your call.

You think? Sounds pretty decent to me. Certainly better than the current fetish for 40-60 hour weeks. But how on Earth could this happen when corporations are unregulated and free to install even more brainwashing? I don't think your "ideal society" would work out. I forsee 60 hour weeks becoming 90 hour weeks when corporations are given cultural carte blanche.

You need to read up on more economic theory. Read the economic theory of diminishing returns. We have a 40 hour work week because at this present time it is the ideal amount of labor that a company can profit from without losing money. Basically, if you work an employee too much, they no longer become productive. And as technology advances, I suspect the workweek will decrease again. We used to have a longer work week, but technological innovation has reduced it...

And regarding this attitude you have towards corporations – only a small number of corporations behave immorally, the truth is that most corporations behave quite reasonably when there is enough competition. Adam Smith’s invisible hand theory explains it nicely - companies with ample competition end up paying employees a higher wage to compete with their rivals, or they give more benefits, and competition makes the production process more efficient, while driving prices down at the same time.

Industries such as Wireless Phone Service and Air Travel are so competitive that they routinely file for bankruptcies or come close to bankruptcies, while the employees don’t feel the companies loses at all. Companies would rather take loses then reduce wages because if wages are reduced then employees will quit on mass or they won’t be as productive. The employee has enormous power over the corporation. Unions are able to improve working conditions without the intervention of government at all. Government is only needed to provide public good services, and regulate certain industries to keep them safe, moral and competitive with each other. But one needs to be very careful with regulation because it can put a company out of business easily.

The end result is that most industries barely make a profit off each unit they sell with an exception of a handful of industries that have monopolies or oligopolies.

The other MAIN function of government should be to split up monopolies and oligopolies because that is where the true immoral behavior comes from because a competitive free market produces the greatest good for all if there are no monopolies or oligopolies present. IE: Adam Smith’s idea of the invisible hand.

So basically, I consider myself a Libertarian with a capital 'L' and a liberal with a small 'l'

[Unidian]

And as technology advances, I suspect the workweek will decrease again. We used to have a longer work week, but technological innovation has reduced it...

In principle, I agree. But in practice, the workweek remains much longer than it needs to be. Many industries could be automated to a far greater degree - but people oppose such automation because it "costs jobs." We already have the technology to drastically reduce the average workweek in industrialized nations. What we don't have is the will to do so, because people are indoctrinated by the work fetish.

[DHodges]

Unidian, I’m sorry, but being an intellectual doesn’t give you a natural entitlement to the welfare system

Of course it doesn't. Being human does.

Would you extend that idea to include the {approximately three billion} people who live on less than two dollars a day? If so, how would you pay for it?

[Unidian]

Ideally, yes. To pay for it, let's start with major cuts to the bloated Pentagon budget, which is basically a giant welfare program / racket for well-placed business interest anyway. Can we say "military-industrial complex?" President (and General) Eisenhower could, and his last act in office was to warn us about it.

It won't take inconceivable amounts of money, because after all, they live on less than $2 a day. Even a little pocket change would make a huge difference to them.

And before anyone mentions inflation, yes I've considered it, and yes, it would increase the cost. I still think large-scale relief is potentially do-able, or at least partially so.

[DHodges]

It won't take inconceivable amounts of money, because after all, they live on less than $2 a day. Even a little pocket change would make a huge difference to them.

Do you have a specific figure in mind? What is the basic standard of living to which you are entitled, based on the fact of being a living human?

Let's throw some rough numbers around. The poverty line in the US is considered to be around $10,000 a year. At $2 a day, these three billion people are currently making around $700 a year each.

If we say they are entitled to $4,000 a year - still well below the poverty line in the US - that's about $3,300 each per year. So that comes out to about $9.9 trillion per year, which is a significant amount of money, even for Americans.

Where would that money come from? Or, perhaps it would be better to ask, where does that money currently go, instead of into the hands of those three billion people who should be getting it?

I have no idea how $4,000 corresponds to what welfare pays out in the US (or elsewhere), so please fill that in if you have some idea.

[Unidian]

Do you have a specific figure in mind? What is the basic standard of living to which you are entitled, based on the fact of being a living human?

Food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and a small spending allowance. In the US currently, perhaps $1000 a month cash, or a lesser amount of cash if some of the necessities were subsidized. I don't know what that would convert to in other currencies. I do know it's well below the mean income.

Let's throw some rough numbers around. The poverty line in the US is considered to be around $10,000 a year. At $2 a day, these three billion people are currently making around $700 a year each.

If we say they are entitled to $4,000 a year - still well below the poverty line in the US - that's about $3,300 each per year. So that comes out to about $9.9 trillion per year, which is a significant amount of money, even for Americans.

That's much too ambitious. For one thing, we don't have the money to guarantee the world the same standards of subsistence we should guarantee Americans. It's unfortunate, but when resources are limited, we have to employ a little nationalism. America first, simply because that's where we have to start. The money simply doesn't exist to raise the entire world to American levels, as you suggest. Also, you're more than quadrupling their income here. That is an enormous subsidy. If they are making the equivalent of $700 a year currently, then a more reasonable goal might be to subsidize them up to $800-900. Jacking them up to $4k would cause insane inflation anyway and defeat the purpose of the whole thing. It would probably collapse their entire fragile economies.

I'm also not a total socialist, contrary to popular belief. Free market initiatives can be helpful with this sort of thing as well. Things like microloans have a proven track record of being effective in reliving third world poverty. Not everybody in the Third World hates work, just as not everybody here hates it. Relatively few would want to be subsidized indefinitely if opportunities for advancement in the market existed. Direct subsidies are not the only answer here or elsewhere. They are simply one part of the equation, aimed at a specific and relatively small group of people.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Unidian,

In principle, I agree. But in practice, the workweek remains much longer than it needs to be. Many industries could be automated to a far greater degree - but people oppose such automation because it "costs jobs." We already have the technology to drastically reduce the average workweek in industrialized nations. What we don't have is the will to do so, because people are indoctrinated by the work fetish.

Even in my small Canadian province, many of the low skilled jobs have already become automated – IE: movie theatres, some large grocery store chains, drive thru bank machines, and there hasn’t been too much resistance. People are not indoctrinated by any sort of work fetish, the fact is that all humans have a will to survive, combined with a reproductive instinct, a pride to succeed and so on. Many people don’t actually like their jobs, but their will to survive and their partner keeps them doing what their doing.

Not to mention, that survival requires quite a bit of labor at this stage of civilization’s evolution, but I’m optimistic that technology will continue to change that, and eventually part-time work will become more common place, and wages will continue to raise as work becomes more technological and high-skilled. And Robots will replace low-skilled jobs, but technicians will be needed to service them in the same manner that technicians are needed to service computers now.

Ideally, yes. To pay for it, let's start with major cuts to the bloated Pentagon budget, which is basically a giant welfare program / racket for well-placed business interest anyway. Can we say "military-industrial complex?" President (and General) Eisenhower could, and his last act in office was to warn us about it.

The major problem I have with foreign aid is that it sends financial subsistence to overpopulated areas that cannot sustain such high populations. These are environments that are fairly volatile as far as the basic necessities are concerned. I think it is just as cruel to barely keep starving people alive in some desolate desert then to simply ignore them and allow their populations to drop to sustainable levels, where the remaining ones can survive more comfortably. Sending food and water is interfering with natural selection, which has a certain intelligence to it. If you overpopulate in an area that cannot support it, you should face the causal consequences, rather than being bailed out by the western governments.

Part of the desertification problem in Africa is caused by overpopulated slum towns cutting down all vegetation in the surrounding areas, which makes the problem worse. Why keep all those people alive so they can continue destroying their environment, and make it harder for the next generation to survive, which will require even more aid from the west, and the cycle becomes perpetually worse…

[Unidian]

You don't think a culture of glorifying work and jobs exists? That's what I mean by "work fetish." If you don't see it, I don't suppose there would be much I could do to convince you.

[DHodges]

That's much too ambitious. For one thing, we don't have the money to guarantee the world the same standards of subsistence we should guarantee Americans. It's unfortunate, but when resources are limited, we have to employ a little nationalism. America first, simply because that's where we have to start. The money simply doesn't exist to raise the entire world to American levels, as you suggest.

That was exactly my point, that on a global scale, it is impossible. (And there can not be a moral duty to do something that is impossible.)

In a practical sense, you are arguing for a special right for a small group of people, a group who are generally already much better off than at least half the world's population.

So, it is not something a person is entitled to just by being human; it's something you are entitled to because you are human and an American citizen. Or a Canadian citizen, or a citizen of some other country that can afford to do that.

[Nick]

I've come to the conclusion that Unidian is unable to give a fair and unbiased assessment of the State's role in the lives of it's people. His number one priority is getting his check, which prevents him from wanting to understand the entire causal web of disaster an over-bearing government gives rise to. He is serving as a good example as to how the survival instinct can also prevent one from from applying sound reason and logic when their individual well being is undermined.

[Carl G]

here are a myriad other elements: in utero and child development exposure to oats vs corn, World Wrestling Events, and even methamphetamine in your bran flakes. But statistically, the ratio of ralphas watching beta TV varies. As the formadyhyde is higher, so is the rate of violence, especially on the show Mr Progeny, and the failure to make it to the bathroom on commerical breaks, because of the sense of identification with the show.

There are lotsa prime time shows like Jerry Springer that show the powerful effect on behavior of hormones like adrenalin, seratonin, and dopamine. The ralphas have higher levels of the former; those who live lower get fatter. Course this can be moderated by vegetation, but the data suggests its a little wacky tobaccie, too late. Who is going to provide the kids for the double blind studies? In any event, the cornpone level is genetically driven, carried mostly on the Y chromosome.

There's some evidence in my neck of the Ozark woods that kids with more active lifestyles in my neck of the Ozark woods dont have nearly the psychosomatic problems in my neck of the Ozark woods. this might have something to do with why the small hill town schools in my neck of Ozark woods, which have so many kids from family farms, have a remarkably low level of autism, ADD, ADHD, in my neck of the Ozark woods and such remarkably high academic performance in my neck of the Ozark woods.

DNA shows that native Europeans evolved in villages of 73-97 individuals over the course of the last 10,044 years. Africans in tribes of 76-117. The former has existed in substantial numbers on farms in my neck of the Ozark woods over the course of the last dozen generations, and therefore- those who survived before social safety nets left progeny who do better in cities.

Recent archaeological work with magnetometers has found large cats' eye marbles in timber frames in suburban areas, like TrippininmyChevy on the Kucha, that date from the mid 5th or even 6th mil BCE with populations of 18,712. And they descended from Anatolian whores going back to the 9th, which had populations of 2,122-5,488. China also has urban life of similar antique stores, and both now have descendants that cope with it a lot better than public gene pools which were only exposed to recent chimes. Cities have had an Orqagquian effect, altho tickling out my mouth just what the hell it says, is moot.

If you look at the work of archeologist M. Gimbutas, you can see that *burp* had very advanced and powerful molocharchic cultures for I have the bends in the pre-Christian era. *Harrumph, hrmph* *clearing throat importantly* Women also had purple earth control. So, "fertility blights" were not for the sake of doing away with fertility, but to motivate idiot slave men who got to attend to go along with the feminist agenda. *Hrumph* I know so much. Even in the middle pages of my essay, there are letters I wrote In Bischopff's Ice Cream Parlor about brother stud muffin who was 'bewitched'. And now that the harvest is over, the witches sent him back to the monestery. Ho! I am clever. And wordy.

The witches were in a position I pontificate pregnancy, but then to clothe the sperm donors they wanted, and *thump* breed men the same way they bred other livestock. Wheee, what girls. The men didn't care, they were getting sex. They didnt have a lotta use for aggressive alpha mail so the general rate for in Europe has always been later. The graves of the yeoman and bowmen farmers show only 5% of the signs of voila! trauma on the bones as seen in tropical butterballs.

Jared Diamond reported that 25% of died in battle when the boys of ten showed up. Even during WWII, on both sides, the death rate in battle was 2-3%. The New Guinea Highlander men were infamous for using boys of 15 at the end of war. Boys of ten are now fighting in Africa. They dont think anything of it. And if you look more carefully into it, you find out that the The New Guinea Highlander men took the boys out of the ranks and tried to stash them in low risk areas, meeting the demands of Jared Diamond officially, but ignoring the boys in private.

Alphas are far more willing to sacrifice betas cause they know that if they can win a harem, there'll be lots more where those came from. Alphas have to push each boy out of their own cunts, and dont take that same attitude. So- for the New Guinea Highlanders, the cost of war in my neck of the Ozark woods is too high.

[Unidian]

I've come to the conclusion that Unidian is unable to give a fair and unbiased assessment of the State's role in the lives of it's people. His number one priority is getting his check, which prevents him from wanting to understand the entire causal web of disaster an over-bearing government gives rise to. He is serving as a good example as to how the survival instinct can also prevent one from from applying sound reason and logic when their individual well being is undermined.

Mmm-hmm. Have you forgotten that you already made this proclamation weeks ago?

Repetition is boring. Why not accuse me of some other simple cognitive bias, preferably a more interesting one? Maybe I advocate economic human rights because I feel guilty about the Chinese I've had chained in my basement for six years. Or perhaps I was assaulted in the street as a youth by a crazed lunatic with a sign reading "The End is Nigh, So Get a Jawb."