Author Topic: Libertarians  (Read 137386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,986
  • Freespeecher
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2007, 02:00:57 »
Libertarianism is mostly a distillation of Classical Liberalism, with a modern understanding of economics, incentives and human nature thrown in. What you see as "rabid selfishness" I see as human nature boiled down to its essentials (as is visible in places like Bosnia and Afghanistan once the masks come off). Interestingly, in Socialist countries, rabid averace is an even stronger motivation, and scrambling for the levers of power to gain and maintain your standard of living and crush the opposition is far more common there (the result of a purge in Canada's Liberal Party; being tossed from caucus. The result of a purge in Cuba: up against the wall.....)

Maybe we really do need Leviathan to maintain peace and good order, although most Libertarians believe that people can make rational choices and that the rational choice in the vast majority of cases is non coercion.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Zip

  • GODLESS HEATHEN
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 1,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,135
    • UNCOMMON SENSE
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2007, 08:16:51 »
Libertarianism is mostly a distillation of Classical Liberalism, with a modern understanding of economics, incentives and human nature thrown in. What you see as "rabid selfishness" I see as human nature boiled down to its essentials (as is visible in places like Bosnia and Afghanistan once the masks come off). Interestingly, in Socialist countries, rabid averace is an even stronger motivation, and scrambling for the levers of power to gain and maintain your standard of living and crush the opposition is far more common there (the result of a purge in Canada's Liberal Party; being tossed from caucus. The result of a purge in Cuba: up against the wall.....)

What I see in places like Bosnia is the end result of a fend for yourself, me first mentality which is what raw Libertarianism boils down to.  Human nature proves and you make good example of it with this illustration that unfettered by law, morality and a sense of society/community the human animal quickly succumbs to the lowest common denominator.

Yes greed is a motivator in socialist nations, but I would argue that avarice is just as much of a factor in places like Bosnia, Rwanda and Afghanistan when “the masks come off” as you put it.  What is it that motivates a man to kill his neighbour and take his property?  Is there a better answer than greed?

Quote
Maybe we really do need Leviathan to maintain peace and good order, although most Libertarians believe that people can make rational choices and that the rational choice in the vast majority of cases is non coercion.

Is our choice really that simple?  Does it boil down to black or white so easily?  I would argue that as much as the modern Liberal welfare state has got wrong in society it has got just as much right.  The same can be said for Conservatism.  I don’t see government as fundamentally evil, wasteful or corrupt but more as an essential human construct that is continually developing to serve the society it forms within.

Our focus as members of society should not be to dismantle government but to build a government so effective that it appears to have been dismantled already.
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man; nor ask another man to live for mine."
UNCOMMON SENSE

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #27 on: March 27, 2007, 09:24:19 »
I think Libertarians recognize that "fend for yourself" is a basic human instinct: handing someone the levers of power of the state doesn't change this.  Perhaps because it is a human construct, the state has no inherent moral superiority: it is simply a tool for the few to best extract what they want from the many.  That it is generally (not always, except in the case of anarchists) ultimately destructive* to the many that it purports to assist or support, only serves to further underscore the point.


*Destructive in the sense that it is less efficient than the free market.
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline Exarecr

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 56
  • Political Correctness is Legitimized Perception
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2007, 09:33:22 »
Gentlemen,(and women),please,this is much ado about nothing. I would be willing to bet most Canadians probably think a "Libertarian",is a Feminist hockey player from Ontario. Most of the verbiage is little more than "stupid speak".

Offline Zip

  • GODLESS HEATHEN
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 1,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,135
    • UNCOMMON SENSE
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2007, 10:19:41 »
Gentlemen,(and women),please,this is much ado about nothing. I would be willing to bet most Canadians probably think a "Libertarian",is a Feminist hockey player from Ontario. Most of the verbiage is little more than "stupid speak".

If you don't want to join in the argument then by all means don't.  Sitting on the sidelines and poking with a stick is childish at best and generally trollish.
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man; nor ask another man to live for mine."
UNCOMMON SENSE

Offline Zip

  • GODLESS HEATHEN
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 1,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,135
    • UNCOMMON SENSE
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2007, 10:45:23 »
I think Libertarians recognize that "fend for yourself" is a basic human instinct: handing someone the levers of power of the state doesn't change this.  Perhaps because it is a human construct, the state has no inherent moral superiority: it is simply a tool for the few to best extract what they want from the many.  That it is generally (not always, except in the case of anarchists) ultimately destructive* to the many that it purports to assist or support, only serves to further underscore the point.


*Destructive in the sense that it is less efficient than the free market.

But in a democratic system we don't really "hand the levers of power" to anyone.  The most we do is lend them our confidence for a finite period.  This alone is enough to ensure that the baser human desires are held in check.  Yes, there will still be some who play with the darker choices of game theory but I think the majority are kept in relative check by the wants, needs and power of the other players, namely the voters.
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man; nor ask another man to live for mine."
UNCOMMON SENSE

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2007, 12:22:45 »
Well, tyranny of the majority (or in Canada's case, a ~40% minority) is still tyranny!  Even if 99% of the population votes for it, Libertarians don't believe that person "A" has the right to the fruits of the labour of person "B".

IMHO, the biggest problem with democracy is that it results in various special (minority or majority) interests competing for the right to decide how, and more importantly, to whom wealth is distributed.  Constitutions (in various forms) are the tool used to stop one interest from imposing it's will on another, that is the only real check: elections are a popularity contest.  Libertarians generally do not believe in positive rights, that is, rights that impose a (generally financial) burden on another party.
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,986
  • Freespeecher
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2007, 15:56:15 »
I think John Galt (like his namesake) has gotten this right.

Libertarians do not (generally) believe in "positive" freedoms, in fact that concept is a corruption of the term.

Reccesoldier, your argument about temporarily handing the levers of power over is perhaps even more theoretical than many of the principles that underlie most ideologies; how do you "temporarily" hand over the levers of power to career politicians and a permanent bureaucracy? You might note I am a big fan of term limits for elected office.

Recognizing that people can descend to violence and coercion to achieve their short term goals is simply a recognition of human nature (and indeed nature in general; watch a troop of Chimps or Baboons in action and you will see lots that is familiar). Libertarianism is a recognition that cooperation and non coercion are the rational keys to setting and achieving long termgoals; and that is really what defines intelligence and civilization.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2007, 16:03:23 by a_majoor »
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,397
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2007, 17:23:18 »
>Yes, there will still be some who play with the darker choices of game theory but I think the majority are kept in relative check by the wants, needs and power of the other players, namely the voters.

I have met very, very, very few people who were involved in one organization or another who didn't take at least a few shades of grey advantage of a position of authority (ie. power to do something) to the benefit of themselves or friends.  Selfishness, I can deal with - you have something, and I have to make my own if you won't share.  Arbitrary authority I am nearly powerless to overcome - I have something, and they take it.  The worst thing you can say about a selfish person who respects the boundaries between himself and others is that he won't share.  Charity and altruism are praiseworthy and to be encouraged, but selfishness gets too much stick - as a personal failing, it is very small beer.  Using others as means to your ends - that's a huge failing.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"But injustice is a rule of the service, as you know very well; and since you have to have a good deal of undeserved abuse, you might just as well have it from your friends."  - The Ionian Mission, by Patrick O'Brian.

Offline edgar

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 71
  • I have a wild bunch of coconuts
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #34 on: March 28, 2007, 11:32:43 »
...  Using others as means to your ends - that's a huge failing.

Isn't that the definition of leadership?
My heavy metal will settle the puppets like Gepetto

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,986
  • Freespeecher
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2007, 19:53:55 »
Isn't that the definition of leadership?


http://www.teal.org.uk/leadership/definition.htm

Quote
   
Our Definition of Leadership

There are many diverse definitions of leadership. This page outlines a few common approaches, and outlines the definition of leadership underpinning Christian Leadership World. For this site, our leadership definition is defined as "enabling a group to engage together in the process of developing, sharing and moving into vision, and then living it out." We also emphasise the importance of a leader's character and integrity in building up the trust necessary for the leadership to be exercised over a period of time. For Christian Leadership, the importance of prayer must be emphasised - since God seeks to work in partnership with his people, and prayer is the primary channel of communication.

Some of the common ideas that others include in leadership definitions include exerting influence, motivating and inspiring, helping others realize their potential, leading by example, selflessness and making a difference. For perspective, we include several other common definitions :

Leadership DefinitionLeadership Definition : The Collins English Dictionary. ( © 1998 HarperCollins Publishers ) leadership (n) 1. The position or function of a leader. 2. the period during which a person occupies the position of leader: during her leadership very little was achieved. 3. a. the ability to lead. b. (as modifier): leadership qualities. 4. the leaders as a group of a party, union, etc.: the union leadership is now very reactionary.

This dictionary definition of leadership focuses on the position (singular or collective), tenure and ability of leaders. As such, it misses key points about the purpose and hallmarks of effective leadership.

Leadership DefinitionLeadership Definition : Peter Drucker : The forward to the Drucker Foundation's "The Leader of the Future" sums up leadership : "The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers." To gain followers requires influence (see John Maxwell's definition below) but doesn't exclude the lack of integrity in achieving this. Indeed, it can be argued that several of the world's greatest leaders have lacked integrity and have adopted values that would not be shared by many people today.

Leadership DefinitionLeadership Definition : John C Maxwell : In the 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, John Maxwell sums up his definition of leadership as "leadership is influence - nothing more, nothing less." This moves beyond the position defining the leader, to looking at the ability of the leader to influence others - both those who would consider themselves followers, and those outside that circle. Indirectly, it also builds in leadership character, since without maintaining integrity and trustworthiness, the capability to influence will disappear.

Leadership DefinitionLeadership Definition : Warren Bennis :  Warren Bennis' definition of leadership is focused much more on the individual capability of the leader : "Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize your own leadership potential."

Leadership DefinitionLeadership Definition : Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester :  For the purposes of the Leadership Development Process of the Diocese of Rochester, their leadership definition is "the process of influencing the behavior of other people toward group goals in a way that fully respects their freedom." The emphasis on respecting their freedom is an important one, and one which must be the hallmark of Christian leadership. Jesus influenced many diverse people during his ministry but compelled no-one to follow Him.

And there is the old chestnut about influencing others to willingly accomplish the aim of the leader.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2007, 20:10:52 »
And there is the old chestnut about influencing others to willingly accomplish the aim of the leader.

Willingly being the key word here: compelling others to do one's bidding through coercive means (legally or otherwise) is not leadership.
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline Zip

  • GODLESS HEATHEN
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 1,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,135
    • UNCOMMON SENSE
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2007, 08:14:18 »
And there is the old chestnut about influencing others to willingly accomplish the aim of the leader.

You mean...

Leadership is the art of influencing human behaviour so as to accomplish the mission in the manner desired by the leader

We had to memorize 5 definitions on my CLC.  Leadership, Management, Inspiration, Command and one that predates Women in the Combat Arms and political correctness

I still remember them all.
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man; nor ask another man to live for mine."
UNCOMMON SENSE

Offline edgar

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 71
  • I have a wild bunch of coconuts
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2007, 10:12:24 »
Willingly being the key word here: compelling others to do one's bidding through coercive means (legally or otherwise) is not leadership.
So what was all that yelling about at the battle school?
Incredible that on a leadership course they would spend so much time not leading.
My heavy metal will settle the puppets like Gepetto

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #39 on: March 29, 2007, 10:23:14 »
So what was all that yelling about at the battle school?
Incredible that on a leadership course they would spend so much time not leading.

I don't think that I am in a position to answer that honestly in public.
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline Zip

  • GODLESS HEATHEN
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 1,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,135
    • UNCOMMON SENSE
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #40 on: March 29, 2007, 11:14:23 »
So what was all that yelling about at the battle school?

That was for those people who practise that other type of motivation... Loudership.

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man; nor ask another man to live for mine."
UNCOMMON SENSE

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,397
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2007, 18:08:40 »
>Isn't that the definition of leadership?

Nope.  The essence of libertarianism is that collective action should be informed and consensual.  Every degree of "or else" is a degree of movement away from that.  I've lost track of the number of otherwise reasonable, rational, and intelligent people whose paths have crossed mine who in a moment of frustration and weakness have basically told me "Shut the f* up and pay/provide/do; you're outvoted" because the easiest path to realization of their brilliant plan is the power of government.  That's the ugly baseline of something that is not leadership.  Respect for the autonomy of the person means having to respect ornery, cranky, selfish, lazy, isolationist people - tolerance in its true meaning.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"But injustice is a rule of the service, as you know very well; and since you have to have a good deal of undeserved abuse, you might just as well have it from your friends."  - The Ionian Mission, by Patrick O'Brian.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,986
  • Freespeecher
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2007, 07:57:00 »
So what was all that yelling about at the battle school?
Incredible that on a leadership course they would spend so much time not leading.

No, the yelling is Command and motivation, since it is difficult to get people to follow the commanders intent (willingly or otherwise) in a hail of gunfire.

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Zip

  • GODLESS HEATHEN
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 1,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,135
    • UNCOMMON SENSE
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2007, 08:05:54 »
>Isn't that the definition of leadership?

Nope.  The essence of libertarianism is that collective action should be informed and consensual.  Every degree of "or else" is a degree of movement away from that.  I've lost track of the number of otherwise reasonable, rational, and intelligent people whose paths have crossed mine who in a moment of frustration and weakness have basically told me "Shut the f* up and pay/provide/do; you're outvoted" because the easiest path to realization of their brilliant plan is the power of government.  That's the ugly baseline of something that is not leadership.  Respect for the autonomy of the person means having to respect ornery, cranky, selfish, lazy, isolationist people - tolerance in its true meaning.

Brad, how many people do you think are informed enough to make rational consentual choices?  Think about it...  In a society where only 65+/- % bother to vote in free and fair elections and even less of them actualy bother to make their choice a non-partisan one where do you think our society would end up without at least a modicum of "this is the way it is going to be"?
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man; nor ask another man to live for mine."
UNCOMMON SENSE

Offline edgar

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 71
  • I have a wild bunch of coconuts
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2007, 10:52:21 »
>Isn't that the definition of leadership?

Nope.  The essence of libertarianism is that collective action should be informed and consensual.  Every degree of "or else" is a degree of movement away from that.  I've lost track of the number of otherwise reasonable, rational, and intelligent people whose paths have crossed mine who in a moment of frustration and weakness have basically told me "Shut the f* up and pay/provide/do; you're outvoted" because the easiest path to realization of their brilliant plan is the power of government.  That's the ugly baseline of something that is not leadership.  Respect for the autonomy of the person means having to respect ornery, cranky, selfish, lazy, isolationist people - tolerance in its true meaning.

So your slogan then is "if it's not libertarian, it's not leadership". Nor is it oatmeal.
My heavy metal will settle the puppets like Gepetto

Offline FrenchAffair

  • Banned
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2007, 15:22:40 »
Libertarians in my experience are a bunch of selfish isolationists. After Communism and Nazism it is one of the more morally disgusting political parties in existence. Luckily though thus far in history no nation has been unintelligent enough to support a Libertarian government (with the exception of Augusta Pinochet).

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,986
  • Freespeecher
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2007, 16:41:37 »
Brad, how many people do you think are informed enough to make rational consentual choices?  Think about it...  In a society where only 65+/- % bother to vote in free and fair elections and even less of them actualy bother to make their choice a non-partisan one where do you think our society would end up without at least a modicum of "this is the way it is going to be"?

Perhaps the best predictor is the market. Wherever the market is free and efficient, consumers participate fully and enthusiastically, choice is high and prices are generally low. Think about that whenever you go out to buy groceries.

The political system is (deliberately) an inefficient market. Choices are limited, information about the market and "products" is limited and the consumer (voter) can only shop (vote) at irregular intervals, usually measured in years. Political parties control the process to the extent they can get away with, and a permanent bureaucracy also works to limit voter power while it enhances its own. Taxpayers and voters do use the available information to make rational choices whenever and however they can, although it can take the form of tax evasion, capital mobility and labour mobility. The ones with the most resources have the most incentive to move away from high tax and high regulatory environments, taking their investment power with them. (The wealthy investor acting rationally may not be overtly Libertarian, and I would suspect many such people would never claim to adhere to the Libertarian philosophy even as they act upon it).

"This is the way its going to be" has a place, particularly in emergency situations, however short of war or natural disaster there is very little reason for government to invoke these sorts of powers. Of course, by claiming regulatory failure and unintended consequences of government regulation are "market failures", they create their own permanent emergencies and use these excuses to extend government powers.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,397
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #47 on: March 31, 2007, 02:18:30 »
>Brad, how many people do you think are informed enough to make rational consentual choices?

I think large numbers of people lack one or more of intelligence, education, common sense; or, even granted they have all of those, they lack the willpower to overcome their emotional and biological urges sufficiently to make rational consensual choices consistently.  As a result, large numbers of people make poor decisions.

But none of that is a satisfactory reason for any other person or people to assume more than a very bare minimum of power to direct their lives.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"But injustice is a rule of the service, as you know very well; and since you have to have a good deal of undeserved abuse, you might just as well have it from your friends."  - The Ionian Mission, by Patrick O'Brian.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,397
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #48 on: March 31, 2007, 02:21:20 »
>So your slogan then is "if it's not libertarian, it's not leadership". Nor is it oatmeal.

That's your shoe, not mine.  Don't presume to speak for me.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"But injustice is a rule of the service, as you know very well; and since you have to have a good deal of undeserved abuse, you might just as well have it from your friends."  - The Ionian Mission, by Patrick O'Brian.

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,931
Re: Libertarians
« Reply #49 on: March 31, 2007, 02:29:29 »
Libertarians in my experience are a bunch of selfish isolationists. After Communism and Nazism it is one of the more morally disgusting political parties in existence. Luckily though thus far in history no nation has been unintelligent enough to support a Libertarian government (with the exception of Augusta Pinochet).

- You sound confused.  Pinochet a Libertarian?  I doubt it, though a lot of Libertarians no doubt 'disapeared' under his watch.
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")