A Sighting of David Ricardo in Palo Alto Don Boudreaux I'm genuinely delighted to learn that students at Stanford's School of Law are learning the meaning and benefits of the principle of comparative advantage. _This fine op-ed_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123000989.html) in today's Washington Post by Josh Sheptow, a Stanford law student, explains why the widespread practice of high-priced corporate attorneys devoting some of their time to do pro bono work for poor people is "staggeringly inefficient." Here's the core of Mr. Sheptow's argument: My argument is straightforward. First, note that there are nonprofits such as the Legal Aid Society that do nothing but provide free legal services to low-income clients. Their offices are not fancy and their attorneys command much lower salaries than their counterparts at large, prestigious law firms. As a result, it costs these organizations (or, more accurately, their donors) less than $100 for each hour of legal services they provide to low-income clients.
Now consider a lawyer who charges paying clients $500 an hour (roughly the going rate for an upper-level associate at a large corporate law firm). If she donated 10 hours of fees to Legal Aid, she could fund roughly 50 hours of legal service to low-income clients. That's five times the amount of service she could provide if she spent those 10 hours doing pro bono work herself. Thus it is much more efficient for her, and for high-priced lawyers generally, to donate their fees rather than their time. Well done, Mr. Sheptow! Posted in _Law_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/law/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/a_sighting_of_d.html) | _Comments (11)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/a_sighting_of_d.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/a_sighting_of_d.html#trackback) December 29, 2005 Milton and (Charlie) Rose Don Boudreaux Milton Friedman _was the guest_ (http://www.charlierose.com/search/search.asp) on Monday night's The Charlie Rose Show. Unfortunately, a free link to the show -- or even its transcript -- is unavailable. But I don't regret the $9.95 that I paid for the transcript to be e-mailed to me. Friedman remains brilliant and important. Here, for example, is Friedman responding to the oft-expressed concern that foreigners holding dollars and dollar-denominated assets is dangerous for America because foreigners might 'dump' these assets. MILTON FRIEDMAN: Why - who -- how would they dump it? CHARLIE ROSE: They would sell it back. MILTON FRIEDMAN: Sell what? CHARLIE ROSE: The interest on the debt that they have. The dollars they have. MILTON FRIEDMAN: To whom? To whom would they sell it? CHARLIE ROSE: Your point is that there is no buyer. MILTON FRIEDMAN: Well, there are buyers, of course there is always a buyer. At what price? CHARLIE ROSE: But wouldn`t that be destabilizing? MILTON FRIEDMAN: Who would lose money? Who would lose money on that kind ... CHARLIE ROSE: Wouldn`t that be destabilizing? Wouldn`t that suggest a lack of confidence in the American economy? MILTON FRIEDMAN: Yes, it might. But the people who would lose by it would be the foreigners who held that and who dumped those dollars. CHARLIE ROSE: Well, then are they in a frozen position then, so that they - they have no flexibility? MILTON FRIEDMAN: They are not in a frozen position. They are in a position they want to be in, because that`s why they are holding these assets. Because they are afraid of risk, of political risk. CHARLIE ROSE: What happens if they would allow ... MILTON FRIEDMAN: And in general, let`s suppose foreigners start dumping their assets here. They would dump them at distressed prices. They would have no ... CHARLIE ROSE: Once it started (INAUDIBLE) would begin. MILTON FRIEDMAN: And who would buy them? The people at home, here, the people in the United States, who had confidence in the United States. So what you would have would be that the assets would go from weak hands to strong hands. It isn`t going to happen, because there is no reason for foreigners to dump the dollars. CHARLIE ROSE: But nothing is certain, is it? I mean, certainly in economics ... MILTON FRIEDMAN: Of course not. Nothing is absolutely certain. But you can be pretty damn sure of what is likely to happen and what isn`t. CHARLIE ROSE: What might -- but argue the other side. What might cause someone to say we`re holding too many dollars and - and we don`t think it`s healthy. MILTON FRIEDMAN: There is only one thing that would cause them to do that, and that`s if we engage in inflation. (Hat tip to David Boaz.). Posted in _Trade_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/trade/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/milton_and_char.html) | _Comments (6)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/milton_and_char.html#comments) | _TrackBack (2)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/milton_and_char.html#trackback) Affordability of Housing Don Boudreaux On the front page of today's New York Times is _a report_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/29/realestate/29afford.html) that I hope against hope that Paul Krugman reads the next time he's tempted to write that ordinary Americans are no better off economically than we were a generation or so ago. Here are the opening paragraphs of the NYT report: Despite a widespread sense that real estate has never been more expensive, families in the vast majority of the country can still buy a house for a smaller share of their income than they could have a generation ago. A sharp fall in mortgage rates since the early 1980's, a decline in mortgage fees and a rise in incomes have more than made up for rising house prices in almost every place outside of New York, Washington, Miami and along the coast in California. These often-overlooked changes are a major reason that most economists do not expect a broad drop in prices in 2006, even though many once-booming markets on the coasts have started weakening. The long-term decline in housing costs also helps explain why the homeownership rate remains near a record of almost 69 percent, up from 65 percent a decade ago. (Hat tip to Karol.) Posted in _Standard of Living_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/standard_o f_living/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/affordability_o.html) | _Comments (8)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/affordability_o.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/affordability_o.html#trackback) December 27, 2005 Market Utopians Don Boudreaux In today's Wall Street Journal, Jeffrey Hart _makes an argument_ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113564361018331773.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries) that I first encountered in _John Gray's work_ (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565845927/qid=1135700461/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-9782236-4980013?s=books &v=glance&n=283155) : At length, the free market triumphed through much of the world, and today there are very few socialists in major university economics departments, an almost total transformation since 1953. But the utopian temptation can turn such free-market thought into a utopianism of its own -- that is, free markets to be effected even while excluding every other value and purpose … … such as Beauty, broadly defined [original elipses]. Such a claim reveals a poor knowledge and understanding of economics. (Among other books that I can recommend to Prof. Hart is Tyler Cowen's _In Praise of Commercial Culture_ (http://www.lfb.com/index.php?deptid=&parentid=&stocknumber=CL8185&page=1&itemsperpage=24) , which clearly explains -- using facts and economic reasoning -- how markets promote rich cultures, graced with much beauty.) I would like Profs. Hart or Gray or anyone else to direct me to any work by any respected free-market economist that portrays free markets as utopian. Perhaps such a work exists. If so, I've yet to encounter it. If any Cafe Hayek reader knows of such a work, please direct me to it. Posted in _Myths and Fallacies_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/myths_and_fallacies/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/market_utopians.html) | _Comments (35)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/market_utopians.html#comments) | _TrackBack (1)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/market_utopians.html#trackback) December 26, 2005 Who You Gonna Call? Don Boudreaux Which places on the Katrina-ravaged gulf coast do you suppose are being cleaned up faster and at lowest cost: those locales that rely principally on the private sector to supply clean-up services, or those locales that rely upon Uncle Sam? Today's New York Times gives _the answer_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/national/nationalspecial/26debris.html?adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1135609436-ygh RBRgr/bFqr0TVJH3f6Q) . (Hat tip to fellow Louisiana native Fred Dent.) Posted in _Current Affairs_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/current_affairs/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/who_you_gonna_c.html) | _Comments (8)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/who_you_gonna_c.html#comments) | _TrackBack (1)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/who_you_gonna_c.html#trackback) December 25, 2005 To Want or Not to Want Don Boudreaux Cafe Hayek reader Keith, after reading _this recent post_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/the_toll_of_eco.html) on toll-roads, asks me: "Why do you [meaning me, Don Boudreaux] insist on criticizing people's preferences? Haven't we Americans rejected toll roads long enough to convince any fair minded person that we don't want them? You may not like our preference, but at least shouldn't you respect it?" With respect, I respect any preference that reflects a genuine willingness of those with the preference to bear personally all necessary costs to indulge the preference. But I do not respect 'cheap' preferences -- preferences that are merely expressions backed-up with no personal stake in indulging the preferences. Suppose I invent a machine that allows me to transfer to anyone I wish the ill-consequences of my drinking too much wine. I drink goo-gobs of wine in the evenings and just before stumbling off drunk to bed I press a button and, voila!, the hangover that I would have awakened with in the morning will now be suffered by my neighbor, who has no earthly idea what's happening to him. Likewise for the calories and any detriments to health and career caused by overdrinking. I enjoy all the benefits of boozing but I off-load the costs onto someone else who has no say in the matter. My machine is quite reliable. Everytime I drink, I press my machine's button and I keep the benefits of boozing but my unwitting neighbor suffers the costs. What do you expect will happen to my pattern of drinking? Let me assure you that I'd drink a lot more than I drink now. I love wine and, I don't mind saying, I love also the intoxication that wine induces. I limit my drinking because I understand that overdoing it has significant personal costs to me and my family. Now suppose in this fantasy world with this machine I tell you that I want to be able to drink every night without limit. Would you believe me? You'd have reason to do so, for in a way I really do want to drink every night without limit. If I really had that machine (and I really did not have the decency that keeps me from shifting such a cost to someone else), I'd shift the costs of drinking onto my neighbor and guzzle nightly. But if in the real world -- the world without any such machine -- I tell you "I want to drink every night without limit," what would I mean? If I didn't have personally to bear the costs of drinking heavily I would indeed "want" to do so. But because I do have personally to bear the costs of drinking heavily, in fact I don't want to do so. My saying, in these real-world circumstances, that "I want to drink every night without limit" is nothing more than a loose, slang use of the verb "to want." After all, if I really wanted to drink much more heavily than I now do, I could easily do so. But I never do -- because I am unwilling to bear the awful costs of suffering hangovers and severe risks to my health and career. The point, in short, is that we use the verb "to want" in very different ways. Some "wants" are worthy and ought to be respected; other "wants" are irresponsible and cavalier -- indeed, not really wants at all. I want you to read also _this essay_ (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4978) that I wrote on the confusing usage of the verb "to want." Posted in _Myths and Fallacies_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/myths_and_fallacies/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/to_want_or_not_.html) | _Comments (11)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/to_want_or_not_.html#comments) | _TrackBack (3)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/to_want_or_not_.html#trackback) The Beauty and Power of Undesigned Order Don Boudreaux I love _this blog-pos_ (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/19793.html) _t_ (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/19793.html) entitled "Of Social Snowflakes..." by Steve Horwitz. It's inspired by _this photograph_ (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/12/merry_christmas_1.html) of a real snowflake. Here's Steve's concluding paragraph: My fervent wish for the 21st century is that more smart and caring people can begin to see and appreciate "social snowflakes." People who are so willing to accept the existence and beauty (and benevolence!) of undesigned order in the natural world should be more willing to open themselves to the possibility that there are processes of undesigned order at work in the social world too. These people know that no one can make a snowflake, but seem blind to the fact that much of the innocent blood that was spilled in the last century was because too many people thought they could intelligently design the social world. Not repeating those mistakes will require a renewed aesthetic appreciation of, and deep desire to understand, the awesome beauty and complexity of the undesigned order of "social snowflakes." Steve's point goes nicely, by the way, with _this post_ (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/12/why_people_dont.html) from Tyler Cowen. Posted in _Complexity and Emergence_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/complexity_and_emergence/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/the_beauty_and_.html) | _Comments (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/the_beauty_and_.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/the_beauty_and_.html#trackback) It Takes a Tough Man to Make a Tender Chicken Don Boudreaux Soon after the Berlin wall crashed down on November 9, 1989, Pepsi Cola ran a television ad celebrating the wall's fall -- an ad, I believe, showing celebrants at the wall drinking Pepsi. I recall that some American pundits were horrified, asking -- rhetorically, in their minds -- if eastern Europeans wanted freedom merely to drink Pepsi. (I can find no link to this ad, but _this interview_ (http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/14/leslie-savan.html) mentions it.) My reaction to this question was and remains "Well, yes, in large part. People want freedom not just to do great and momentous things. Mostly, they want freedom to pursue their everyday pleasures and dreams and interests as they wish without interference from others. Access to more and better soft-drinks, in itself, is a small thing -- but it's certainly part of the reason why people want to be free. And celebrating these quotidian freedoms, even in a Pepsi commercial, is appropriate." For some reason I recalled that Pepsi-commericial brouhaha today when I read in today's New York Times Magazine _this interesting recollection_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/magazine/25perduehoffman-1.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=11355 48836-8ynZ2osG1l78l9xJ7bSW2g) of Frank Perdue, the Marylander who became wealthy growing, slaughtering, and selling chickens. Too many people -- such as those who were offended by Pepsi-Cola, Inc., associating freedom with joyously drinking soft-drinks -- disdain everyday freedoms as well as everyday commercial and industrial activities made possible by these freedoms and that, in turn, make these freedoms more valuable to each of us. I hope I'm wrong (I really do), but I fear that too many people who read the following about Frank Perdue will regard such efforts as contemptible, low, mean, almost comical, unworthy of being ranked as great. In fact, such efforts are precisely the sort that makes our prosperity so vast and deep. But what was its [a Perdue chicken's] unique selling proposition? To hear Perdue himself tell it, his chickens were just plain better than anybody else's. His son, Jim, says that when his father decided in the late 1960's to cut out the middleman and sell his chickens directly to grocery stores, he spent six months on the road, talking to butchers about what qualities they liked to see in their chickens. "He identified 25 items on a chicken that they cared about," Jim Perdue said. They wanted yellow chickens, so Frank Perdue fed his poultry grain that gave the meat a golden hue. They didn't like little hairs left over on the wings after plucking, so Perdue had his engineers develop a torch that would singe the hairs off. They wanted more white meat, so he mated a meaty-breasted Cornish male with a White Plymouth Rock female to create the Perdue pedigree. They didn't want bruised meat, so Perdue set strict protocols for handling live chickens. He was obsessive about knowing everything there was to know about chickens - and about maintaining what heviewed as the superior quality of Perdue Farms' birds. Looking at a reel of old Perdue ads, this obsession is striking. In the earliest commercial, he talks about how well his chickens are fed - including "pure well water to drink." In another, he complains that his competitors freeze their meat. To drive the point home, he hammers a nail into a piece of wood with a frozen chicken. He talks about how he had to develop his own breed because no other chicken in the world was good enough for Perdue Farms. And he constantly needles the federal government, claiming he inspects chickens better than it does. Ain't it great that someone -- someone who is a stranger to almost all of America's chicken eaters -- spent his valuable time traveling around asking butchers what features make a good chicken? Ain't it great that Frank Perdue cared about the water his chickens drank? Ain't it great that he bred a new breed of chicken? Sure, he did all this to make money for himself. But so what? His means of making money inspired him to care deeply about what the typical chicken eater likes and dislikes about chicken. Why is it that so many people admire the likes of FDR and LBJ who uttered fine phrases but whose ideas of helping people never went beyond stealing from some, showering part of the booty on others, and bureaucratically regulating everyone? Frank Perdue alone has contributed more to our quality of life than has any politician you care to name. This claim of mine will strike many as over the top. But I mean it literally. Perdue persuaded people to buy his chickens. Politicians force people to do their bidding. Those in the force business are inherently less likely to care deeply about people -- about real, flesh-and-blood people in all of our diversity -- than are those, like Frank Perdue, whose success depends critically upon persuading millions of people to buy, and keep buying, their products. Update: Muck and Mystery _gently plucks my feathers_ (http://www.garyjones.org/mt/archives/000236.html) by arguing that (1) there's nothing really special about Frank Perdue, for the production and distribution practices that Perdue followed are standard practice in the poultry industry, so (2) Perdue's real genius lay in advertising to promote himself and his firm, and (3) that insofar as Perdue and other poultry producers do contribute to our well-being, it's the system that encourages such wealth-creating efforts. I'm happy, although not suprised, to learn that Perdue's best-practices are industry standard. My point was not so much to praise Frank Perdue personally (although I do regard him as praiseworthy). My point was to celebrate the fact that we have an economic system that prompts Perdue, and Tyson's, and you-name-the-entrepreneur each to spend enormous amounts of creativity and effort doing things that we consumers never become consciously aware of -- but things that we nevertheless value and benefit from. So, indeed, the system is of paramount importance -- but this fact doesn't mean that we can't admire the many instances of creative human productive efforts that it unleashes. On the merits of advertising, I'll just recommend _one of my favorite books on the topic_ (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0936488212/qid=1135597581/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/002-9782236-4980013?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) . Posted in _Standard of Living_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/standard_of_living/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/it_takes_a_toug.html) | _Comments (4)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/it_takes_a_toug.html#comments) | _TrackBack (1)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/it_takes_a_toug.html#trackback) December 23, 2005 Adam Smith: Yokel Don Boudreaux _In today's New York Times_ (http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23krugman.html) , Paul Krugman calls _supply-side economics_ (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SupplySideEconomics.html) -- by which _Krugman means_ (http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html) the idea that tax cuts can generate higher tax revenue for government-- as "hokum for the yokels." _Krugman has long ridiculed_ (http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html) the idea that for thirty years now in the U.S. has been known as "the Laffer curve." Indeed, as his "hokum for the yokels" remark makes clear, Krugman sneers at _the Laffer curve_ (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm) . My first reaction, whenever I read Krugman's (or anyone else's) dismissal of the Laffer curve as illogical hooey, is to wonder if Krugman ever studied the concept of _own-price elasticity of demand_ (http://www.uri.edu/artsci/ecn/mead/INT1/Mic/Overview/Over.elast.html) . For the non-economists among you, this concept is taught in Economics 101, and explains that firms that raise their prices do not always earn higher sales revenue; their revenue can and often does fall. (To see the point clearly: ask youself what would happen if, say, Starbucks raised the price it charges for a tall latte to $1,000.) Likewise, firms can often increase their sales revenue by cutting their prices. But Cafe Hayek's Russ Roberts has a different thought: he knows that the Laffer-curve idea didn't originate in the United States during the 1970s. Russ knows that it expresses a truth so fundamental that thoughtful thinkers from even long ago understood it -- thoughtful thinkers such as _Adam Smith_ (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html) . _Here's_ (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN21.html#B.V,%20Ch.2,%20Of%20the%20Sources%20of%20the%20General%20or%20Public%20Revenue%20of%20the%20Socie ty) the great Scot writing in Book V, Chapter 2 of The Wealth of Nations: The high duties which have been imposed upon the importation of many different sorts of foreign goods, in order to discourage their consumption in Great Britain, have in many cases served only to encourage smuggling, and in all cases have reduced the revenue of the customs below what more moderate duties would have afforded. The saying of Dr. Swift, that in the arithmetic of the customs two and two, instead of making four, make sometimes only one, holds perfectly true with regard to such heavy duties which never could have been imposed had not the mercantile system taught us, in many cases, to employ taxation as an instrument, not of revenue, but of monopoly. Does the above sound like hokum for yokels -- or hokum from a yokel? Posted in _History_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/history/index.html) , _Prices_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/prices/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/adam_smith_yoke.html) | _Comments (22)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/adam_smith_yoke.html#comments) | _TrackBack (3)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/adam_smith_yoke.html#trackback) December 22, 2005 The Byrd is at least wounded Russell Roberts The Washington Post (rr) _reports_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102074.html) that the Senate has voted to kill the Byrd Amendment: The Senate action, which came as part of a broader budget bill that passed with Vice President Cheney's tie-breaking vote, would phase out the Byrd amendment, a five-year-old measure especially popular with lawmakers from industrial states heavily affected by foreign competition. The House has already voted to repeal the amendment, named for Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), in nearly identical legislation. Yes, it would be especially popular with lawmakers from industrial states: According to the Byrd amendment, whenever the government finds U.S. companies to be disadvantaged by the dumping of imported goods at unfairly low prices, the duties collected on those goods can go to the companies rather than to the Treasury. Don't you love that phrase, "disadvantaged by the dumping of imported goods at unfairly low prices"? Of course if you're a domestic producer, all low prices charged by foreign competitors are unfairly low. And of course all low prices put domestic producers at a disadvantage. The problem with anti-dumping low is the definition of "unfair." The way that it is actually defined is comically arbitrary and creates endless opportunities for domestic firms to enter the anti-dumping lottery in hopes of forcing higher prices on competitors. What the Byrd amendment does is doubly reward that lottery effort. Not only does anti-dumping law force foreign prices higher but it channels the fines to the domestic firms. You can't have everything: The repeal would be delayed for two years, giving some U.S. lumber firms and other companies the chance to continue receiving substantial sums under the amendment. That compromise was necessary to secure yesterday's vote. Taking time to phase something in is generally a good idea to allow people time to react to the new rules. But I wonder if this repeal will be repealed two years from now. Posted in _Trade_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/trade/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/the_byrd_is_at_.html) | _Comments (3)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/the_byrd_is_at_.html#comments) | _TrackBack (1)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/the_byrd_is_at_.html#trackback) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery. http://us.click.yahoo.com/U6CDDD/izNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
