Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-21 02:27:00 UTC

  • What Are The Key Differences Between Mainstream Libertarian Thought And The Positions Taken By Koch-sponsored Organizations?

    The Koch’s are irrelevant.  They are just the easiest source of money. But it doesn’t take much money to run a think tank, so there are a lot of them.

    The libertarian spectrum is roughly aligned with the conservative,  Right Libertarian, Left Libertarian, and Anarchist spectrum, and most of us are associated with one or more of the Think Tanks that address the conservative – libertarian spectrum. 


    They are (key players only):



    CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN
    1. The Heritage Foundation : conservative libertarians (focus on norms and the family)

    MIDDLE (Classical Liberal Libertarian)
    1. Cato: Well connected, Republican Libertarians (focus on practical action to minimize government).
    2. The Future of Freedom Foundation   “Individual liberty, free markets, private property and limited government.” The FFF takes its libertarianism very seriously, so much so that even liberals may find themselves nodding while reading.
    3. The Heartland Institute  Moderate libertarianism, go to “PolicyBot”.

    RADICAL (Anarcho Capitalist Libertarian)
    1. Mises Institute : Anarchic Libertarians (focus on eliminating the state )
    2. Property and Freedom Society: (Focus on small private governments similar to monarchies.)

    OTHERS
    • American Enterprise Institute ( focus on entrepreneurship and economics)
    • Independent Institute    Aims to eliminate government influence and 5) interference in all aspects of life.
    • Cascade Policy Institute     Libertarian and oriented toward Oregon, there are broader issues under “Policy Areas”.
    • Institute for Policy Innovation   With the usual emphasis on “lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a smaller, less-intrusive government” pertaining to social security and healthcare, the IPI also addresses intellectual property and technological issues.
    • Lexington Institute    Libertarian views on defense, education, regulation, homeland security, immigration, Cuba and postal reform.


    FULL LISTS
    There are a lot of them and less than half are listed in wikipedia.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-differences-between-mainstream-libertarian-thought-and-the-positions-taken-by-Koch-sponsored-organizations

  • Is It True, As John C. Drew Asserts, That He Is “the Only Ph.d. Level, Published Political Scientist Contributing Comments At Quora”?

    I don’t know if he is the only PhD, since there are a lot of PhD’s in Political Science.  You must realize that in America that a PhD does not mean that  you have mastered a field, but it means you have mastered the art of RESEARCH in your field.  And I am fairly sure that most questions are better answered by Pollsters, statisticians and Political Economists than political scientists. I am not sure that those of us who write political philosophy, even the philosophy of political economy, are any better at it than any of the other groups. 

    But, that hedging said, by and large, very few specialists post here, and most of the questions are fraudulent attempts to promote leftism by asking critical questions.  See “The Critical Theory” and “The Culture of Critique” as means of undermining western moral and social structures through obscurantist criticism.

    I tend to only answer questions here if they sound reasonably intelligent and honest, and thats a high bar for this forum.  And it’s getting worse.  Democracy is a pretty good way of peaceful transfer of power, but not a good way of understanding much of anything. It’s a race to the bottom in most cases.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-as-John-C-Drew-asserts-that-he-is-the-only-Ph-D-level-published-political-scientist-contributing-comments-at-Quora

  • Is There A Better Word For Progressive Beliefs Than “progressivism”?

    I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE

    (If you think I have then please promote this piece)

    PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE AND THE STATUS QUO
    Progressive and conservative express positions relative to the status quo.
    However, out of repeated use, this term refers to the difference between State control of society (left = totalitarianism), and ‘normative’ control of society (right = libertarianism).


    NOLAN/ASPLUND POLITICAL CHART
    However, the ‘NOLAN CHART’ is a more accurate and sophisticated view of politics as two dimensions.   Left totalitarianism of the state via law, right totalitarianism of ‘norms’, and libertarian totalitarianism of commerce is probably the most accurate way of thinking about political biases.


     





    The problem is. This chart helps you organize political biases, but it doesn’t tell you WHY WE HAVE THEM.   So we need to look at something else. Because it turns out that we don’t, except for the statistically insignificant, ever change our political biases.


    RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL ORIGINS
    In my own work, I’ve tried to  show how totalitarian, normative, and libertarian biases tend to originate from different religious and cultural backgrounds in europe.









    FAMILY STRUCTURES
    And Emmanuel Todd’s work shows that these religious structures roughly correspond to our FAMILY structures.  With conservatives in the nuclear family, catholics in the traditional family, jews in the extended family, and muslims in the tribal family.  We are now able to trace the progressive left’s origins as an alliance between Northeast Puritan Women,  The Feminist Movement, and the Jewish Communist Movement.









    So Emmanuel Todd’s map of immigration and family structures, looks much like my map of religious structures (which you can find on the web now in a few places. It seems to be spreading a bit.)

    AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS
    So if you look at these maps of america:







    It’s pretty clear, given everyone’s origins, where their political biases come from: their moral codes reflect their cultural origins,  the relationship between their family structures, moral codes, and economic demands.


    PRACTICAL IMPACT
    If you understand this set of charts, you’ll quickly grasp, that all our political talk is purely entertainment and spent energy. Our political biases, like our moral intuitions, are not voluntarily chosen except at the margins.

    The people who decide elections in america consist of two groups:
    (a) Uninvolved, Uncommitted, and Unaware voters who represent from 7-14% of the populace (depending on who you ask), and who can be swayed by popular opinion and emotion rather than political conviction or reason, and (b) single mothers and young women who now represent a NEW FAMILY STRUCTURE, and who are highly biased toward the state (the left). It is these two groups who determine the outcome of elections, since everyone else is  pretty committed and reasonably evenly distributed. (See Pew research.)

    This is why conservatives use every trick in the book to retain the nuclear family and progressives eery trick in the book to undermine the nuclear family because the nuclear family, and it’s civic independence is the primary threat to state power. Religion has always been an effective means of resisting the western state. And conservatives use this because it means they get to establish their own moral grounds insulated from argument.  Just as progressives try the same by different means.

    SOURCE OF POLITICAL BIASES
    (1) Genetics
    (2) Gender
    (3) Childhood family structure
    (4) Culture
    (5) Environment
    (6) Willful Informed Adult Choice

    GENDER BIASES
    When we created representative democracy the head of household was a male with discretion over family use of property, and was the equivalent of a small or medium sized business owner today. These men had homogenous moral and cultural codes. They had relatively homogenous interests that differed only by scale.  The opposing reproductive and therefore moral intuition for men and women was homogenized by the nuclear family structure.  But the addition of women to the workplace and the voting pool eliminated that compromise. And as each generation passes, women increasingly are either single, or single mothers, and vote the female reproductive bias, which is to bear children and care for them but place responsibility for their support and upkeep on the tribe as much as possible. Other factors matter, but by and large it is women and their preference to press the costs of childrearing on the ‘tribe’ that has determined the gradual leftward motion in america, and left the conservative nuclear family with its emphasis on self reliance in the minority. There are more issues here but I’m attempting to emphasize that our political biases are not the conscious choices that we think they are.  We are incredibly predictable.



    RECOMMENDED READING
    1) “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” by Andrew Heywood.
    Political Ideologies: An Introduction: Andrew Heywood: 9780230367258: Amazon.com: Books

    2) “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt
    The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion: Jonathan Haidt: 9780307377906: Amazon.com: Books

    https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-better-word-for-progressive-beliefs-than-progressivism

  • Capitalism: How Much Is Wasted In Finding Market-based Solutions?

    I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE:

    RE: “That represents a huge expenditure of human and physical resources that is not typically looked at when evaluating the efficiency of the winner.”

    Actually, it is obvious, common sense, and assumed in economics and politics, but we come to the opposite conclusion.  (a) we are constantly researching and developing new products and services, and variations of them through constant refinements of products, services, and prices called ‘entrepreneurial research and development”. It is not a process of PRODUCTION. The market is a process of RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

    Furthermore, as the world consists of millions of resources, all of which have multiple demands on them, we must constantly look for what we refer to as ‘substitutions’ in the form of different resources, different suppliers, different technology, to adapt to constant changes in the demand for and availability of resources from the most simplistic primary resources to the most complex combination of sophisticated production techniques. 

    So. NONE OF IT IS WASTE.   The market is not a machine following a production program. It is a vast network of individuals working in networks some of us call ‘patterns of sustainable specialization and trade”, dynamically changing our efforts in response to other similar networks, in real time on a momentary basis in some cases (oil prices) and on a long term basis in others (commercial construction) and on a very, very long term basis for others (pharmaceutical research.)

    A COMMON ERROR
    It is very common for people who lack knowledge of economics to apply very simplistic concepts of production to an economy. It is very common for people who lack knowledge of economics and to fail to understand prices as an information system by which we coordinate ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY to serve each other’s needs, in a vast division of knowledge and labor, that is incomprehensible to any individual or group of individuals.  It is very common for people who lack knowledge of economics to confuse the difficulty in producing goods and services, as one of applying labor, when labor is, in fact, the cheapest most ready commodity available, and worth very little. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to ORGANIZE VOLUNTARY participation in production that is not a constant process of producing what is know, but a perpetually dynamic process of organizing the process of research and development, which produces an infinite variety of goods, wherein the competition between multiple producers forces all production to the lowest price, so that an increasing number of people can afford to consume goods. 

    Each of us produces very little. None of us, individually, matters to production. However, by voluntarily coordinating our efforts through self interest, by using the information system we call prices to guide us, we can cooperate by in a vast division of incomprehensible knowledge and labor.

    For this reason, people who ORGANIZE production are compensated highly for it, but those who CONSUME that production.  Largely, those of us who consume or labor, gain the benefit of our efforts, each of which is very small, in the form of affordable consumer goods and services.  Not necessarily as compensation. Because it is our labor that is of little value, and the organization of labor for the purpose of production as highly valuable. Because risk taking, forecasting, and guessing the future against competitors, so that we make the best use of the world’s resources at any given time, is what determines success or failure of the coordination of many people’s interwoven efforts as successful. And that success is told to us by the information system in the form of ‘profit’.  Profit which is quite hard to obtain it turns out.  That is because, except at the extremes, organizations, whether private or public consume the maximum amount of profit that investors will tolerate. 

    I HOPE THIS ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

    It cannot be waste if it is experiment.  The problem with your question is that you assume we know what we do not and cannot know. It may help to remember that the socialists thought like you do and 100 million people are dead because of it. And the entire world has abandoned socialism (central planning of production) for this reason.  Prices and Incentives are inseparable. without prices we literally cannot think, or plan, or coordinate out efforts. Without incentives we cannot voluntarily get people to continue to conduct research and development.  Without research and development we cannot sustain production at low prices, with increasing advancement in technology, goods and services. Without advancement we would eventually become incrementally poorer as all differences between us were equilibrated, and the incentive to cooperate voluntarily declined. 

    EASY ENTRY LEVEL READINGS
    “I Pencil” (Essay)
    “The Use Of Knowledge In Society” (Essay / Hayek)
    “Parable Of The Bees” (Essay)
    “Economics In One Lesson” (Book / Haslitt)

    That’s about it. You get that. You get economics.  We call it The Economic Way of Thinking. 

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute.
    Kiev

    https://www.quora.com/Capitalism-How-much-is-wasted-in-finding-market-based-solutions

  • What Are The Key Differences Between Mainstream Libertarian Thought And The Positions Taken By Koch-sponsored Organizations?

    The Koch’s are irrelevant.  They are just the easiest source of money. But it doesn’t take much money to run a think tank, so there are a lot of them.

    The libertarian spectrum is roughly aligned with the conservative,  Right Libertarian, Left Libertarian, and Anarchist spectrum, and most of us are associated with one or more of the Think Tanks that address the conservative – libertarian spectrum. 


    They are (key players only):



    CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN
    1. The Heritage Foundation : conservative libertarians (focus on norms and the family)

    MIDDLE (Classical Liberal Libertarian)
    1. Cato: Well connected, Republican Libertarians (focus on practical action to minimize government).
    2. The Future of Freedom Foundation   “Individual liberty, free markets, private property and limited government.” The FFF takes its libertarianism very seriously, so much so that even liberals may find themselves nodding while reading.
    3. The Heartland Institute  Moderate libertarianism, go to “PolicyBot”.

    RADICAL (Anarcho Capitalist Libertarian)
    1. Mises Institute : Anarchic Libertarians (focus on eliminating the state )
    2. Property and Freedom Society: (Focus on small private governments similar to monarchies.)

    OTHERS
    • American Enterprise Institute ( focus on entrepreneurship and economics)
    • Independent Institute    Aims to eliminate government influence and 5) interference in all aspects of life.
    • Cascade Policy Institute     Libertarian and oriented toward Oregon, there are broader issues under “Policy Areas”.
    • Institute for Policy Innovation   With the usual emphasis on “lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a smaller, less-intrusive government” pertaining to social security and healthcare, the IPI also addresses intellectual property and technological issues.
    • Lexington Institute    Libertarian views on defense, education, regulation, homeland security, immigration, Cuba and postal reform.


    FULL LISTS
    There are a lot of them and less than half are listed in wikipedia.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-differences-between-mainstream-libertarian-thought-and-the-positions-taken-by-Koch-sponsored-organizations

  • Is It True, As John C. Drew Asserts, That He Is “the Only Ph.d. Level, Published Political Scientist Contributing Comments At Quora”?

    I don’t know if he is the only PhD, since there are a lot of PhD’s in Political Science.  You must realize that in America that a PhD does not mean that  you have mastered a field, but it means you have mastered the art of RESEARCH in your field.  And I am fairly sure that most questions are better answered by Pollsters, statisticians and Political Economists than political scientists. I am not sure that those of us who write political philosophy, even the philosophy of political economy, are any better at it than any of the other groups. 

    But, that hedging said, by and large, very few specialists post here, and most of the questions are fraudulent attempts to promote leftism by asking critical questions.  See “The Critical Theory” and “The Culture of Critique” as means of undermining western moral and social structures through obscurantist criticism.

    I tend to only answer questions here if they sound reasonably intelligent and honest, and thats a high bar for this forum.  And it’s getting worse.  Democracy is a pretty good way of peaceful transfer of power, but not a good way of understanding much of anything. It’s a race to the bottom in most cases.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-as-John-C-Drew-asserts-that-he-is-the-only-Ph-D-level-published-political-scientist-contributing-comments-at-Quora

  • Is There A Better Word For Progressive Beliefs Than “progressivism”?

    I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE

    (If you think I have then please promote this piece)

    PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE AND THE STATUS QUO
    Progressive and conservative express positions relative to the status quo.
    However, out of repeated use, this term refers to the difference between State control of society (left = totalitarianism), and ‘normative’ control of society (right = libertarianism).


    NOLAN/ASPLUND POLITICAL CHART
    However, the ‘NOLAN CHART’ is a more accurate and sophisticated view of politics as two dimensions.   Left totalitarianism of the state via law, right totalitarianism of ‘norms’, and libertarian totalitarianism of commerce is probably the most accurate way of thinking about political biases.


     





    The problem is. This chart helps you organize political biases, but it doesn’t tell you WHY WE HAVE THEM.   So we need to look at something else. Because it turns out that we don’t, except for the statistically insignificant, ever change our political biases.


    RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL ORIGINS
    In my own work, I’ve tried to  show how totalitarian, normative, and libertarian biases tend to originate from different religious and cultural backgrounds in europe.









    FAMILY STRUCTURES
    And Emmanuel Todd’s work shows that these religious structures roughly correspond to our FAMILY structures.  With conservatives in the nuclear family, catholics in the traditional family, jews in the extended family, and muslims in the tribal family.  We are now able to trace the progressive left’s origins as an alliance between Northeast Puritan Women,  The Feminist Movement, and the Jewish Communist Movement.









    So Emmanuel Todd’s map of immigration and family structures, looks much like my map of religious structures (which you can find on the web now in a few places. It seems to be spreading a bit.)

    AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS
    So if you look at these maps of america:







    It’s pretty clear, given everyone’s origins, where their political biases come from: their moral codes reflect their cultural origins,  the relationship between their family structures, moral codes, and economic demands.


    PRACTICAL IMPACT
    If you understand this set of charts, you’ll quickly grasp, that all our political talk is purely entertainment and spent energy. Our political biases, like our moral intuitions, are not voluntarily chosen except at the margins.

    The people who decide elections in america consist of two groups:
    (a) Uninvolved, Uncommitted, and Unaware voters who represent from 7-14% of the populace (depending on who you ask), and who can be swayed by popular opinion and emotion rather than political conviction or reason, and (b) single mothers and young women who now represent a NEW FAMILY STRUCTURE, and who are highly biased toward the state (the left). It is these two groups who determine the outcome of elections, since everyone else is  pretty committed and reasonably evenly distributed. (See Pew research.)

    This is why conservatives use every trick in the book to retain the nuclear family and progressives eery trick in the book to undermine the nuclear family because the nuclear family, and it’s civic independence is the primary threat to state power. Religion has always been an effective means of resisting the western state. And conservatives use this because it means they get to establish their own moral grounds insulated from argument.  Just as progressives try the same by different means.

    SOURCE OF POLITICAL BIASES
    (1) Genetics
    (2) Gender
    (3) Childhood family structure
    (4) Culture
    (5) Environment
    (6) Willful Informed Adult Choice

    GENDER BIASES
    When we created representative democracy the head of household was a male with discretion over family use of property, and was the equivalent of a small or medium sized business owner today. These men had homogenous moral and cultural codes. They had relatively homogenous interests that differed only by scale.  The opposing reproductive and therefore moral intuition for men and women was homogenized by the nuclear family structure.  But the addition of women to the workplace and the voting pool eliminated that compromise. And as each generation passes, women increasingly are either single, or single mothers, and vote the female reproductive bias, which is to bear children and care for them but place responsibility for their support and upkeep on the tribe as much as possible. Other factors matter, but by and large it is women and their preference to press the costs of childrearing on the ‘tribe’ that has determined the gradual leftward motion in america, and left the conservative nuclear family with its emphasis on self reliance in the minority. There are more issues here but I’m attempting to emphasize that our political biases are not the conscious choices that we think they are.  We are incredibly predictable.



    RECOMMENDED READING
    1) “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” by Andrew Heywood.
    Political Ideologies: An Introduction: Andrew Heywood: 9780230367258: Amazon.com: Books

    2) “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt
    The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion: Jonathan Haidt: 9780307377906: Amazon.com: Books

    https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-better-word-for-progressive-beliefs-than-progressivism

  • Capitalism: How Much Is Wasted In Finding Market-based Solutions?

    I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE:

    RE: “That represents a huge expenditure of human and physical resources that is not typically looked at when evaluating the efficiency of the winner.”

    Actually, it is obvious, common sense, and assumed in economics and politics, but we come to the opposite conclusion.  (a) we are constantly researching and developing new products and services, and variations of them through constant refinements of products, services, and prices called ‘entrepreneurial research and development”. It is not a process of PRODUCTION. The market is a process of RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

    Furthermore, as the world consists of millions of resources, all of which have multiple demands on them, we must constantly look for what we refer to as ‘substitutions’ in the form of different resources, different suppliers, different technology, to adapt to constant changes in the demand for and availability of resources from the most simplistic primary resources to the most complex combination of sophisticated production techniques. 

    So. NONE OF IT IS WASTE.   The market is not a machine following a production program. It is a vast network of individuals working in networks some of us call ‘patterns of sustainable specialization and trade”, dynamically changing our efforts in response to other similar networks, in real time on a momentary basis in some cases (oil prices) and on a long term basis in others (commercial construction) and on a very, very long term basis for others (pharmaceutical research.)

    A COMMON ERROR
    It is very common for people who lack knowledge of economics to apply very simplistic concepts of production to an economy. It is very common for people who lack knowledge of economics and to fail to understand prices as an information system by which we coordinate ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY to serve each other’s needs, in a vast division of knowledge and labor, that is incomprehensible to any individual or group of individuals.  It is very common for people who lack knowledge of economics to confuse the difficulty in producing goods and services, as one of applying labor, when labor is, in fact, the cheapest most ready commodity available, and worth very little. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to ORGANIZE VOLUNTARY participation in production that is not a constant process of producing what is know, but a perpetually dynamic process of organizing the process of research and development, which produces an infinite variety of goods, wherein the competition between multiple producers forces all production to the lowest price, so that an increasing number of people can afford to consume goods. 

    Each of us produces very little. None of us, individually, matters to production. However, by voluntarily coordinating our efforts through self interest, by using the information system we call prices to guide us, we can cooperate by in a vast division of incomprehensible knowledge and labor.

    For this reason, people who ORGANIZE production are compensated highly for it, but those who CONSUME that production.  Largely, those of us who consume or labor, gain the benefit of our efforts, each of which is very small, in the form of affordable consumer goods and services.  Not necessarily as compensation. Because it is our labor that is of little value, and the organization of labor for the purpose of production as highly valuable. Because risk taking, forecasting, and guessing the future against competitors, so that we make the best use of the world’s resources at any given time, is what determines success or failure of the coordination of many people’s interwoven efforts as successful. And that success is told to us by the information system in the form of ‘profit’.  Profit which is quite hard to obtain it turns out.  That is because, except at the extremes, organizations, whether private or public consume the maximum amount of profit that investors will tolerate. 

    I HOPE THIS ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

    It cannot be waste if it is experiment.  The problem with your question is that you assume we know what we do not and cannot know. It may help to remember that the socialists thought like you do and 100 million people are dead because of it. And the entire world has abandoned socialism (central planning of production) for this reason.  Prices and Incentives are inseparable. without prices we literally cannot think, or plan, or coordinate out efforts. Without incentives we cannot voluntarily get people to continue to conduct research and development.  Without research and development we cannot sustain production at low prices, with increasing advancement in technology, goods and services. Without advancement we would eventually become incrementally poorer as all differences between us were equilibrated, and the incentive to cooperate voluntarily declined. 

    EASY ENTRY LEVEL READINGS
    “I Pencil” (Essay)
    “The Use Of Knowledge In Society” (Essay / Hayek)
    “Parable Of The Bees” (Essay)
    “Economics In One Lesson” (Book / Haslitt)

    That’s about it. You get that. You get economics.  We call it The Economic Way of Thinking. 

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute.
    Kiev

    https://www.quora.com/Capitalism-How-much-is-wasted-in-finding-market-based-solutions

  • GEORGE ORWELL DISTILLING JAMES BURNHAM We didn’t get socialism. We didn’t get ca

    GEORGE ORWELL DISTILLING JAMES BURNHAM

    We didn’t get socialism. We didn’t get capitalism. We didn’t get a social democracy. We got an expropriative bureaucracy.

    –“Capitalism is disappearing, but Socialism is not replacing it. What is now arising is a new kind of planned, centralised society which will be neither capitalist nor, in any accepted sense of the word, democratic. The rulers of this new society will be the people who effectively control the means of production: that is, business executives, technicians, bureaucrats and soldiers, lumped together by Burnham, under the name of ‘managers’. These people will eliminate the old capitalist class, crush the working class, and so organise society that all power and economic privilege remain in their own hands. Private property rights will be abolished, but common ownership will not be established. The new ‘managerial’ societies will not consist of a patchwork of small, independent states, but of great super-states grouped round the main industrial centres in Europe, Asia, and America. These super-states will fight among themselves for possession of the remaining uncaptured portions of the earth, but will probably be unable to conquer one another completely. Internally, each society will be hierarchical, with an aristocracy of talent at the top and a mass of semi-slaves at the bottom.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-20 13:10:00 UTC