Liberty & Power: Group Blog
Roderick T. Long
David T. Beito
Only a pretentious, overpaid, windbag quotes himself in the third person. Or, does someone else write this crap for you, David?
David T. Beito
As L and P readers know, I have long disputed these claims. Now, it increasingly appears that the final report by investigators will throw cold water on the hypesters. By all indications, the prosecutor's focus has narrowed almost entirely to Carolyn Bryant, the wife of one of the accused killers. Even prosecution of Bryant (in my view) is unlikely.
Here is what I had to say in the Jackson Clarion Ledger about the latest developments:
University of Alabama history professor David Beito has researched the Till case exhaustively with his wife, Linda Royster Beito, a Stillman College professor.
Building a case against Carolyn Bryant after five decades is difficult, he said."You have nobody to show her involvement, except the statement from Mose Wright. That's about all you've got."
In her recent interview with the FBI, she denied being present when Milam and Bryant kidnapped Till.
Beito said there has been a lot of claims about the case that don't mesh with the facts he found.
For instance, some have suggested more than a dozen people were involved in Till's killing and that"seven or more of them are still alive," he said.
It is true a number of people beyond Bryant and Milam were involved in the killing, he said. For instance, Willie Reed testified he saw three white men and two black men in the truck with Till the morning of the killing.
Beito said Reed identified the two black men, who now are dead, and Milam. Some have speculated the other two white men were Bryant and Leslie Milam, who managed a plantation and is now deceased.
Beito said he's anxious for the FBI's exhaustive report on the investigation to be made public in order to disprove false claims.
David T. Beito
Aeon J. Skoble
Aeon J. Skoble
David T. Beito
Henry David Thoreau, "Essay on Civil Disobedience."
For Veterans Day, I drafted my take on Rumsfeld. I hope he gets to read it, because I think that sadly, he would have to agree with me. Enjoy Rumsfeld's Legacy!
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.
This is just the sort of egalitarianism that libertarians have always opposed. It is not merely dangerous to a libertarian politics; the two are antithetical.
What does it really mean, after all, for all persons to have"the rights... to benefit equally... from the resources afforded us... by the environment?" It means constant, massive redistribution of resources. It means an enormous and intrusive state to do the dirty work. It means the end of the free market and the beginning of socialism. Whether you're a libertarian by way of Rothbard, Nozick, Rand, Friedman, or anyone else for that matter, it's hard to see how this economic egalitarianism is at all a defensible value. And even if you see the worth of voting strategically for Democrats -- as many libertarians have lately done to achieve gridlock -- it's hard to see the strategic benefits to voting Green.
A practical illustration may help. Consider Maryland Libertarian Party Senate candidate Kevin Zeese, who appeared on the state ballot under the Green Party's name while receiving the LP's endorsement. Zeese supported single-payer healthcare and defaulted altogether on the question of property rights and regulatory takings. A candidates' questionnaire asked him,"Would you favor having the Congress restore protection for such bodies of water as headwaters streams, isolated wetlands, and prairie potholes?" His answer?"Yes," to which his only qualifiers were examples of how he would further expand the power of Congress. It wasn't merely that he disagreed with the standard libertarian position on environmental issues and private property -- no, he seemed utterly ignorant that libertarians even had a position here. Yet for the past several years, regulatory takings have been one of most important concerns in libertarian policymaking.
The most obvious libertarian answer to this question would simply be"no." Just no. Not even yes. No.
Other plausible answers might include"Yes, but only provided that the government is held to very strict rules that give due compensation for the lost value of the property." Or, if we're feeling really wonkish, we could make some reference to the work of Ronald Coase, which provides a free-market solution to this very problem, one in which the government only adjudicates and protects a newly created market in land use rights that might not otherwise exist.
So anyway... If Kevin Zeese shows what we'd get from a libertarian-Green alliance, I have to say I'm not interested. Pot legalization is great; ending the war is great. If I were a legislator, I'd happily vote with the Greens -- on those issues. But I can't go further than that. The underlying economic egalitarianism just ruins the whole deal for me, and this recent all-too-local example shows that it's not just an abstract or a theoretical concern.
[Crossposted at Positive Liberty.]
Aeon J. Skoble
“Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives; no one should be subject to the will of another."
This is self-contradictory. I agree that no one should be subject to the will of another, but that’s exactly the objection to democracy, under which we are all subject to the will of another anytime we’re outnumbered.
2. Ecological Wisdom
“Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society that utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation.”
Ok, but what are the resource limits? And what is the meaning of “sustainable”? That’s typically code for regulation and the precautionary principle.
“to this end we must have agricultural practices that replenish the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.”
“Must have” here seems to suggest (although I concede it need not) imposed rules.
3.Social Justice and Equal Opportunity
“All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.“
As Jason has noted, this economic outcome-egalitarianism is not at all consistent with libertarianism, or even Rawlsian liberalism for that matter, and reveals an underlying assumption that “society” is the true “owner” of all resources.
“We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and heterosexism, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.“
I know that this is the move Roderick wants to make about thick-versus-thin libertarianism, and I know that this is a key source of intra-libertarian dispute, even here at L&P. For now, though, let’s just note that the way it’s expressed here is sufficiently vague that we can’t tell whether it’s consistent with liberty or not.
“It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to our current patterns of violence at all levels, from the family and the streets, to nations and the world. We will work to demilitarize our society and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote nonviolent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.“
This doesn’t seem too bad, although again the vagueness is worrisome. Does “demilitarize our society” mean we stop invading other countries, or that the 2nd Amendment can be disregarded? Generic “nonviolence” positions are worthless if they don’t make the moral distinction between aggression and defense.
“Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization.”
Yes, largely due to the state and the ways in which wealth buys political power. In a radically libertarian society, this would be mitigated, and in any case, this conclusion:
“Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions”
is radically inconsistent with liberty; again, there is the tacit assumption that markets are bad and that society is the proper owner of all resources, which may then be “distributed” in such a way as to achieve “social justice.”
“away from a system that is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few,”
That’s an argument against states, not wealth.
“Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.”
Well, that’s the real trick, isn’t it? Reconciling democratic decision-making with robust respect for rights (and here we see some artificial distinction between civil rights and property rights) has always been a tall order, and it only makes matters worse if you also think there should be egalitarian resource distribution.
I’m already lost. All economics is community-based. What theory of economics are we talking about here?
“We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living, for all people, while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a "living wage" which reflects the real value of a person's work.”
Oh, now I see: a Marxist theory.
“economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers' rights, broad citizen participation in planning, and enhancement of our "quality of life".“
Citizen participation in “planning”? That’s the market. Unless we’re talking about command-economy planning.
“We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible,”
Socially responsible meaning what? Not, I presume, in the Milton Friedman sense. So then they must mean that companies are only permitted if they mesh with the politically correct set of values and outcomes.
“We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control, with more cooperative ways of interacting which respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the -sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.”
8. Respect for Diversity
“We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.”
Sounds good, but let’s see where they go with it:
“We believe the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies”
Ah, so if the society is 37% Minority A, then 37% of all CEOs and surgeons and Senators and college professors must be Minority A?
“we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles.”
I think they mean “people from ethnicities other members of which have in the past been closed out of…” This is an anti-individualist way of thinking of people.
“We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms and the preservation of biodiversity.”
While I think Spock was right not to want to kill the Horta, was not the Vampire Cloud also the only one of its kind? Some life forms are a threat to humanity. When respect for biodiversity becomes misanthropic, I draw the line.
9. Personal and Global Responsibility
“We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet. “
Sounds good, but there’s that expression “economic justice” again, which they seem to interpret not in free market terms but in terms of egalitarian redistribution.
10.Future Focus and Sustainability
“Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or "unmaking" all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counter-balance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.”
“Our” policies? Command economy? And how do we “assure” outcomes as prescribed here?
That’s 1 out of 10. I fail to see how this platform can even remotely be shoehorned into libertarianism. The author of this platform fundamentally fails to see how markets work, or how liberty is indivisible, or how democratic institutions are in conflict with rights, or what it means for rights to be compossible. If Roderick can convince someone who holds all these views to actually respect individual liberty and not be aggressive, he’s the best salesman since Ron Popeil. I think very highly of Roderick, but I don’t see it happening.
This is to say that the Greens believe all sorts of things, with anti-conservatism being their main, unifying purpose. The ten core principles appeal to a wide variety of people precisely because they are so vague and even self-contradictory. You get more anarchist-leaning Greens as well as ambitious central planners, and, because of the culture war and obfuscatory left-right divide in American politics, they all get along relatively well with not much more of a common belief than that the Republicans are the root of all evil and the Democrats are not much better.
Some Greens will be open to libertarian arguments and are potential converts. Others are a lost cause.
I am interested in learning more about Senator Hagel. What little I do know about him suggests he has potential. Now, you are saying that he is a social conservative, so the key question for me is does he know the difference between advocating legalization of drugs and advocating the use of drugs?
I believe that drug prohibition is by far and away the worst aspect of our present public policy. The evidence is overwhelming that the illegality of drugs has a plethora of both intended and unintended negative consequences with virtually nothing positive to balance them out. The policy simply does not do what it supposed to do, keep people from using certain kinds of drugs. In addition, the governmental goal of keeping individuals from using the proscribed substances is not nearly as worthy a cause as those who support and very often benefit by prohibition would have you think.
A government that respects the liberty and rights of its people and the prohibition of drugs are totally incompatible. So, if the Senator is not willing to keep an open mind on this issue and learn from people other than self-interested bureaucrats or hysterical parents groups then I can not support him.
A second corollary question concerns whether or not Senator Hagel is intelligent enough to recognize that raising the question of drug policy, making the irresistible case, both practical and moral, that is available to him, and achieving real change will not only make him President but also an American hero.
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
I say sort of because I dont really think voting is terribly important. And I certainly dont think theres a duty to vote Athena forfend! Moreover, the usual arguments in favour of voting (like if you dont vote, you cant complain which Spencer nicely disposed of in 1851) are generally much worse than the arguments against. Still, there are some common (in libertarian circles) arguments against voting that dont convince me. Let me briefly say why.
The voluntaryist argument is that by voting one immorally and imprudently lends ones sanction to the state. Ive responded to this argument a decade ago (see here and here), and dont have much to add.
Another common argument, especially popular with economists, is that voting is irrational, because (barring the overwhelmingly unlikely possibility of the elections being decided by a single vote) the outcome will be the same however, or whether, one votes. Even if ones aim in voting is not to get ones candidate elected but merely to increase the candidates vote totals for strategic reasons, still whether that result happens is independent of whether one personally votes or not so why vote?
But if that were a good argument against voting, it would be an equally good argument against contributing to any cooperative effort whose success depends on other people’s cooperating also. And so, for example, it would be an equally good argument against being a libertarian activist of any sort since no one libertarian activists contribution is likely to make the crucial difference as to whether libertarianism triumphs or not.
I would even say that we have a duty to make a contribution to public goods. But its an imperfect duty in Kants sense, meaning that we need only contribute reasonably often to a reasonable number of public goods; were not obligated to contribute to every public good on every possible occasion. Hence one has no duty to vote (despite Peikoffs bizarre assertion which Id love to see him try to make to Howard Roark that anyone who ... abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in mans actual life), since its a matter of choice which goods one contributes to and when; but one is certainly free to pick voting as one of the occasions for the exercise of this duty.
In response to this reply John T. Kennedy writes that my comparison between voting and other forms of libertarian activism, such as blogging, would be correct only if the expressive power of your vote were equal to the expressive power of your writing. But in fact, he argues, [t]he difference in leverage between the two actions is so overwhelming that it would clearly be counter-productive to waste time voting when that time could be better employed improving your next blog entry. I would note, however, that this response is a retreat from the standard economic argument against voting to a weaker position, namely that voting makes a smaller contribution to the ultimate triumph of libertarianism than other forms of activism (though participating those other forms probably wont make the decisive difference either). Well, then, should I specialise in whichever one form of activism I think will make the greatest overall contribution? Should I focus on scholarly articles and forget blogging? Or should I focus on blogging and forget scholarly articles? It seems to me to make more sense to diversify.
A third objection to voting, the agorist objection, is one I have more sympathy with. On this view, the best strategy for achieving a libertarian society lies not with an attempt to seize the reins of power (whether by electoral or revolutionary means) but rather with an attempt to encourage people to withdraw consent to the state through mass disobedience, and this strategy involves education and building alternative institutions, but not necessarily electoral politics. Indeed, so runs this argument, trying to get people to vote is counter-productive, since we should be discouraging rather than encouraging peoples attachment to the rituals of the state.
Now I certainly agree that as libertarian strategies go, education and building alternative institutions are much more important than electoral politics. And I also agree that the danger of reinforcing peoples attachment to the state is a count against urging people to vote libertarian. (I say vote libertarian rather than vote Libertarian because the Libertarian candidate is not always the most libertarian candidate especially in light of the recent unpleasantness in Portland. On the other hand, I dont think the dont waste your vote argument against voting Libertarian is any good; see once again here.) But I also think voting can be useful as a means of self-defense in the short run; and while the ultimate revolution will be preimarily from the bottom up, it will certainly go more smoothly, and with less danger of a violent crackdown from a government desperate to maintain power, if weve got some support on the inside too.
David T. Beito
A Vietnam veteran and pioneer in the cellular phone industry, Hagel has long been a thoughtful Iraq War skeptic. His free market credentials are pretty solid (for a Republican), especially when compared to Giuliani, McCain, and Mitt"government mandated insurance" Romney. Here is a blog which is promoting Hagel's campaign for president.
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
Yesterdays election brought high points and low. It was a relief to see the unbearable Rick Santorum go down to defeat in Pennsylvania, but not so delightful to see the despicable Elliot Spitzer gain the governorship in New York. On the whole, though, Im glad to see the Republicans get trounced as they deserve. And divided government is one step closer to no government.
The real question now is whether the newly empowered Democrats will stand up to Bush on questions of war and civil liberties, or whether they will merely take the opportunity to indulge in their usual programs of job destruction (a.k.a. minimum wage laws), victim disarmament (a.k.a. gun control), etc.
One reason for pessimism is the way the Democrats abjectly rolled over for Bush in the wake of 9/11. Another is the way theyve been endlessly coy about whether they want to end the war or just fight it better. Still another is this observation that [m]any of the newly elected Democrats come from the moderate to conservative wing of the party. They are national security hawks in the main and most do not favour a quick withdrawal from Iraq. Many of them are social conservatives and protectionists .... Oh, goody.
On the other hand, one reason for optimism is that antiwar sentiment nonetheless clearly played a central role in bringing about yesterdays Democratic victories. Thus the Democrats may have to throw some sort of antiwar bone to their constituents. Well see.
In longer-term electoral politics, what Id really like to see is a Green/Libertarian coalition. The Greens ten values are perfectly consistent with libertarianism, though the means chosen to achieve them may not always be. Im largely in agreement with this piece by Dan Sullivan, though I favour a different solution to the land question and I also think making agreement on any one solution to the land question a precondition for Green/Libertarian cooperation is strategically self-defeating. (In practical terms the best solution for disagreements over land policy is decentralisation. Kick the disagreement downstairs and tussle over it at the local level; that way no one solution gets imposed on everybody else.) For some other Green/Libertarian proposals see here, here, here, and here. (One approach to Green/Libertarian cooperation that I dont favour is this one, which I initially thought was a joke but apparently not.)
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
Since Christopher Hitchens gave up socialism, Ive ironically enough gone from disagreeing with him 40% of the time to disagreeing with him 80% of the time. I used to look forward to his mordant skewerings of the mighty, but lately he seems to have morphed into a mean-spirited shill for the establishment.
But at last comes a Hitchens editorial I can happily endorse; despite his having fallen to the neocon/prowar dark side, he makes a good case against executing Saddam Hussein. (Conical hat tip to Christopher Morris.) I share Hitchens misgivings both about the death penalty in general, and about the legitimacy of the vanquished being tried by the victors rather than by a neutral court.
While Im on the subject of Hitchens, though, I also want to comment on something he said about libertarianism in his Reason interview a few years back. While this was after the beginning of his rightward shift, its basically a left-wing criticism, and like most left-wing criticisms of libertarianism its partly right and partly wrong:
I threw in my lot with the left because on all manner of pressing topics the Vietnam atrocity, nuclear weapons, racism, oligarchy there didnt seem to be any distinctive libertarian view. I must say that this still seems to me to be the case, at least where issues of internationalism are concerned. What is the libertarian take, for example, on Bosnia or Palestine?
Theres also something faintly ahistorical about the libertarian worldview. When I became a socialist it was largely the outcome of a study of history, taking sides, so to speak, in the battles over industrialism and war and empire. I cant and this may be a limit on my own imagination or education picture a libertarian analysis of 1848 or 1914. I look forward to further discussions on this, but for the moment I guess Id say that libertarianism often feels like an optional philosophy for citizens in societies or cultures that are already developed or prosperous or stable. I find libertarians more worried about the over-mighty state than the unaccountable corporation. The great thing about the present state of affairs is the way it combines the worst of bureaucracy with the worst of the insurance companies.
Part of being a left-libertarian is that on the one hand youre constantly trying to prod fellow libertarians into moving farther left, while on the other hand youre constantly trying to show fellow leftists that libertarianism is already farther left than they realise. This is certainly an occasion for both responses.
Hitchens is certainly right to say that libertarians have often been less concerned about issues like racism, oligarchy, and corporate power than they should be that they have stressed the evils of state oppression but often turned a blind eye to nonstate forms of oppression. On this general topic see this recent post of mine and this recent post of Wally Congers.
But at the same time Hitchens is certainly mistaken in supposing that libertarians have neglected these issues entirely. I need hardly point out to the readers of this blog that there exists, for example, an enormous libertarian literature both on war and on corporate power, and indeed on issues of class generally; in fact libertarians pioneered modern class analysis. (One suspects Hitchens hasnt spent much time poring through Left & Right, Libertarian Forum, New Libertarian, or the JLS.) And he is also right to worry that his inability to picture a libertarian analysis of 1848 or 1914 or other such historical events may stem from a limit on [his] own imagination or education, since here too there is plenty of such analysis available.
Thus I close with the ringing slogan, proudly inscribed on the streaming banners of the left-libertarian vanguard: Libertarianism: Less Left Than It Should Be, But Lefter Than You Think.
But when I think I can't abide by conservatives one more moment, they do something to top themselves.
Consider this post by David Frum at National Review Online about the Ted Haggard affair (HT: Andrew Sullivan). The key bit is this:
Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.
One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.
The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.
Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?
After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his"real" life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works.
Yet it is the first man who will if exposed be held up to the execration of the media, while the second can become a noted public character - and can even hope to get away with presenting himself as an exemplar of ethics and morality.
How does this make moral sense?
NRO's Kathryn Lopez called Frum's argument"excellent."
When mainstream conservativism not only countenances but gives a moral standing ovation to a man who threw his own family under the bus while loudly proclaiming his moral and political opposition to all the consensual behaviors he was engaging in, it's time to wonder whether people like Frum and Lopez have, literally, lost their minds, not to mention libertarians who have any patience for people who make arguments like this.
Haggard has wrecked the lives of his wife and 5 kids, risked giving her any number of STDs by fooling around with a drug-using prostitute, and lied to and abandoned thousands of parishoners he had an obligation to serve. Yet because he toes the party line on the evils of homosexuality and drugs in his public pronouncements, he is more moral than the man who lives an openly gay life and who supports drug legalization, never harming a loved one or anyone to whom he is legally or morally obligated?
Why in heaven's name would ANY libertarian want ANYTHING to do with these people? Frum and Lopez are not little-known extremists - they are major columnists for, arguably, the central voice of modern conservatism.
Can someone please explain to me why a libertarian should even think about voting Republican?
(And if you want to read something worse, check out the fellow pastor who suggests that Haggard's wife bears some blame for what he did because she, like many other pastors' wives,"is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about." Thus though she"is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.")
Like Andrew Sullivan, my jaw remains on the floor.
David T. Beito
"What is called politics is comparatively something so superficial and inhuman, that practically I have never fairly recognized that it concerns me at all.....I have not got to answer for having read a single President's Message. A strange age of the word this, when empires, kingdoms, and republics come a-beggin to a private man's door and utter their complaints at his elbow! I cannot take up a newspaper but I find that some wretched goverment or other, hard pushed, and on its last legs, is interceding with me, the reader, to vote for it, - more inportunate than an Italian beggar."
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
Today, the Fall 2005 issue of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies has been published. It begins our seventh volume, our seventh year.
Here is the Table of Contents:
The Rand Transcript, Revisited - Chris Matthew Sciabarra
Mimesis and Expression in Ayn Rand’s Theory of Art - Kirsti Minsaas
Langer and Camus: Unexpected Post-Kantian Affinities with Rand’s Aesthetics - Roger E. Bissell
The Facts of Reality: Logic and History in Objectivist Debates about Government - Nicholas Dykes
Ayn Rand versus Adam Smith - Robert White
Feser on Nozick - Peter Jaworski
Kant on Faith - Fred Seddon
Seddon on Rand - Kevin Hill
Reference and Necessity: A Rand-Kripke Synthesis - Roderick T. Long
Reply to Ari Armstrong: How to Be a Perceptual Realist - Michael Huemer
Rejoinder to Michael Huemer: Direct Realism and Causation - Ari Armstrong
Print-out and mail-in your subscription form today! (Shameless commercialism...)