I'm sure many of you know about him, but I thought I'd make a thread for those who don't. This guy is an anarcho-capitalist who rails against government and religion. He has great podcasts and youtube vids at
http://www.youtube.com/stefbot
I quite enjoy his work. He does a wonderful job of synthesizing massive amounts of material on economics, art, history, pyschology, etc. into the philosophy of freedom. And his original work on the family and relationships is fantastic.
I love his commentary on most things, but he makes a lot of grossly incorrect assumptions and statements about Christians and Christian doctrine.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I like how he's really strong on the immorality of government : if coercion is immoral then all government that uses coercion is immoral. None of this wussy limited goevrnment stuff.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Molyneux is an excellent anarcho-capitalist thinker and I easily sympathize with his opposition toward religion but this must cause some friction between him and the many Catholic anarcho-capitalists out there. Mises.org has a certain Catholic essence to it - it certainly doesn't bother me (in regards to economics) but I wonder what atheist market anarchists and Catholic/Christian market anarchists think of each other.
"If we look at the black record of mass murder, exploitation, and tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need not be loath to abandon the Leviathan State and ... try freedom." --Murray Rothbard
Praxeo:...I wonder what atheist market anarchists and Catholic/Christian market anarchists think of each other.
I can't speak for all Christian market anarchists, but I personally don't have any problem being in the company (both intellectual and literal) of atheists. In fact, in some cases I prefer the company of atheist anarchists to fellow Christians who are statists.
The problem comes up when certain anarchists - Molyneux among them - assert that those like myself are not "true" anarchists because we believe in Jesus. I see that as an underhanded way to attack my faith rather than an argument for consistent anti-statism. It's also an invocation of the No True Scotsman fallacy, which has always been a pet peeve of mine.
I have both Christian and atheist anarchist friends in real life, and when we get together there's no problem. I don't make an issue of their nonbelief, though given the proper time and setting I do argue for my faith. Likewise, they don't make an issue of my faith.
I understand the hardline rationalism that drives people like Molyneux to their support for atheism. But I neither understand or tolerate in my company the outright hysteria that drives them to condemn believers as irrational and to equivocate us, morally, with statists.
I am an anarchist because I will be ruled only by God, and that of my own free will. I am not a theocrat or a Christofascist. There are many, many Christians who are like me. To lump us in with the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelpses of the world is collectivist crap.
MacFall: The problem comes up when certain anarchists - Molyneux among them - assert that those like myself are not "true" anarchists because we believe in Jesus.
That is not what he has said. I have listened to many of his podcasts and he has never made such an assertion (at least not in any of the podcasts I have listed to.) He does however; believe that a belief in a faith (ANY faith) is irrational. From what I have heard, his position is similar to what is sometimes called the "ignostic" position. Before you can logically debate the existence of God, you need to have a working definition of God. Otherwise, evasion can occur. The person being debated can claim "Well, that isn't really what I meant by God."
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
ryanpatgray: MacFall: The problem comes up when certain anarchists - Molyneux among them - assert that those like myself are not "true" anarchists because we believe in Jesus. That is not what he has said. I have listened to many of his podcasts and he has never made such an assertion (at least not in any of the podcasts I have listed to.) He does however; believe that a belief in a faith (ANY faith) is irrational. From what I have heard, his position is similar to what is sometimes called the "ignostic" position. Before you can logically debate the existence of God, you need to have a working definition of God. Otherwise, evasion can occur. The person being debated can claim "Well, that isn't really what I meant by God."
One of his podcasts (I don't remember which one) addresses Christians in particular, and he calls them out on their (as implied, inherent) irrationality. It boils down, frankly, to irrational prejudice against believers. As I said, that sort of thing is collectivism - akin to believing that all black people are thugs or that all hispanics steal car radios.
As for the particular equivocation of religious believers with statists, I may be confusing him with someone else.
EDIT: Actually, I'm not. I just did some looking to make sure I wasn't committing the crime (lol) of libel. In his 82nd podcast in particular, but most prominently in his text writing he consistently implies (and sometimes even states) that religion is equivalent to statism.
In his most recent podcasts he has been talking about family structure more than religion. One of his most controversial positions (and in my opinion most interesting) is that being raised in an abusive family situation can lead one to tolerate abuses from government.
That's probably true in some cases, but not in all by any means.
MacFall: One of his podcasts (I don't remember which one) addresses Christians in particular, and he calls them out on their (as implied, inherent) irrationality. It boils down, frankly, to irrational prejudice against believers. As I said, that sort of thing is collectivism - akin to believing that all black people are thugs or that all Hispanics steal car radios.
There is indeed a difference between Christian anarchists and John Hageeites. Lew Rockwell is clearly a Catholic and clearly an anarchist, a pro-law anarchist by the way, not a lawless one. All are susceptible to "acquired immuno-statism syndrome."
MacFall: EDIT: Actually, I'm not. I just did some looking to make sure I wasn't committing the crime (lol) of libel. In his 82nd podcast in particular, but most prominently in his text writing he consistently implies (and sometimes even states) that religion is equivalent to statism.
Can you tell us what exactly it was he said? This does not sound like him. He may have simply said both were equaly irrational or something. I will listen to 82 soon and get back with you.
Praxeo: There is indeed a difference between Christian anarchists and John Hageeites. Lew Rockwell is clearly a Catholic and clearly an anarchist, a pro-law anarchist by the way, not a lawless one. All are susceptible to "acquired immuno-statism syndrome."
Quite true; I would rather have Amish or members of the Society of Friends as neighbors than Maoists, Stalinists or National-Socialists.
Edit, the filter where I work substituted *s for another political term for National Socialists so I changed it to something that. I hate Internet filters.
The word is actually censored by this forum.
Back on topic, citing specific examples:
In the column "A Personal History of Political Freedom", thirteenth paragraph, Molyneux engages in a common atheist fallacy wherein they try to tell Christians what Christians actually believe:
Both the Old and New Testaments constantly command Christians to murder unbelievers. I do not pursue these conversations, since they tend to be very explosive, but if a man tells me that he is a Christian, I do have to ask him if he supports me being put to death for being an atheist. Very few Christians have actually read the Bible all the way through, so they are generally very surprised to hear that God instructs them to kill nonbelievers (of course they also believe that Islam is a violent religion!). They try to find any number of excuses to get their deity "off the hook" for making such evil commandments. They point out the virtues of certain Christians, or that the Bible is mistranslated, misinterpreted, misunderstood and so on.
In the first place, there's NO SUCH COMMANDMENT in the New Testament, and it is New Testament doctrine that Christians follow. But that's not allowed, apparently - if a Christian doesn't support murder, why then he must not be a true Christian.
This is comparable to the common statement that "anarchists want chaos and destruction". If countered with an earnest "that's not true", the attacker will simply state that you're not a TRUE anarchist. That's the No True Scotsman fallacy I mentioned. It's a blatant logical fallacy, and for one who claims logic as his god, it's a huge inconsistency.
The idea of God is socially deadly, because people take their own murky impulses as divine commandments, subject to no rational examination or empirical challenges. Since there is no God, all who receive replies from this void are hearing merely the echoes of their own madness. During a plague, a doctor does no good by pretending that the sick are healthy. He will only aid the spread of the pathogen. As atheists, we must stop sanctioning religious ideas. We must always call this cancer by its name. The world is sick with God-fever. And the time has come for us to cure it, no matter what the cost.
Again, collectivist blanket statements and ad hominem. And the part in bold... when I read that, I stopped taking him seriously. Such has been the sentiment behind the worst statist attrocities in history.
I will also direct you to a number of his podcasts when I'm not about to go to class.
But just reading over his blog it ought to be apparent that he equates all Christianity with political Christianity, assumes that all religiously-derived morality is statist in nature, and believes all Christians to be either statists or hypocrites.
With all that said, I still respect him a great deal for his rational arguments and his secular-moral arguments against the state. But I won't stand for being accused of statism, hypocricy, and worse just because I hold a belief that he does not share.
I publicly called him out once.He subsequently banned my IP address from his website.
He's not too smart though. He seems to forget what a proxy is.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Nasikabatrachus:"In the first place, there's NO SUCH COMMANDMENT in the New Testament, and it is New Testament doctrine that Christians follow." Well, he claims he's cited the particular bit of scripture to people who've asked before. I've not bothered to look it up, but why don't you ask him for it and tell us if he's talking out of his no-sunshine region? "But that's not allowed, apparently - if a Christian doesn't support murder, why then he must not be a true Christian." Actually he's stated before that he doesn't think there's any such thing as a true Christian, given the thousands of mutually incompatible sects of it. If I may present my understanding of his argument: 1) Chrisitans follow the moral edicts of the Bible 2) The Bible, in the new testament specifically, prescribes violence against non-Christians 3) From 1 and 2, Christians who follow the moral edicts of the Bible consistently should advocate violence against non-Christians And hence he derives the conclusion that Christians cannot be anarchists, since anarchists oppose aggressive violence on principle, a subset of which is religion-based aggression. I think this discussion should be best continued after finding the piece of scripture that he actually cites as evidence for this argument, no?
Oh God...
ryanpatgray: That is not what he has said. I have listened to many of his podcasts and he has never made such an assertion (at least not in any of the podcasts I have listed to.) He does however; believe that a belief in a faith (ANY faith) is irrational. From what I have heard, his position is similar to what is sometimes called the "ignostic" position. Before you can logically debate the existence of God, you need to have a working definition of God. Otherwise, evasion can occur. The person being debated can claim "Well, that isn't really what I meant by God." In his most recent podcasts he has been talking about family structure more than religion. One of his most controversial positions (and in my opinion most interesting) is that being raised in an abusive family situation can lead one to tolerate abuses from government.
Yes, Molyneux is the type that when asked about Immanuel Kant, replies with some anti-Christian joke - confusing Immanuel with Emmanuel.
It's the secular religion. Men used to rely on men in black robes for the words of truth, now they rely on men in white ones - there's no difference.
MacFall: The word is actually censored by this forum. Back on topic, citing specific examples: In the column "A Personal History of Political Freedom", thirteenth paragraph, Molyneux engages in a common atheist fallacy wherein they try to tell Christians what Christians actually believe: Both the Old and New Testaments constantly command Christians to murder unbelievers. I do not pursue these conversations, since they tend to be very explosive, but if a man tells me that he is a Christian, I do have to ask him if he supports me being put to death for being an atheist. Very few Christians have actually read the Bible all the way through, so they are generally very surprised to hear that God instructs them to kill nonbelievers (of course they also believe that Islam is a violent religion!). They try to find any number of excuses to get their deity "off the hook" for making such evil commandments. They point out the virtues of certain Christians, or that the Bible is mistranslated, misinterpreted, misunderstood and so on. In the first place, there's NO SUCH COMMANDMENT in the New Testament, and it is New Testament doctrine that Christians follow. But that's not allowed, apparently - if a Christian doesn't support murder, why then he must not be a true Christian.
As this is a board devoted to economics and not religion it would probably be more appropriate to respond to this off the board. I will do so.
MacFall: Again, collectivist blanket statements and ad hominem. And the part in bold... when I read that, I stopped taking him seriously. Such has been the sentiment behind the worst statist attrocities in history.
Niccolò: Yes, Molyneux is the type that when asked about Immanuel Kant, replies with some anti-Christian joke - confusing Immanuel with Emmanuel.
Molyneux talks in a free-flow style which is actually one of the things I like about his podcasts. His early podcasts were recordings he made while driving. He goes off topic quite often and I find it charming. It gives his podcasts a more human nature. take a listen if you do not believe me. You can find them at www.freedomainradio.com
Niccolo, you certainly seem to spend a lot of time thinking and writing about someone you consider to be so much in error. I wonder why that is so?
Nasikabatrachus:If I may present my understanding of his argument: 1) Chrisitans follow the moral edicts of the Bible 2) The Bible, in the new testament specifically, prescribes violence against non-Christians 3) From 1 and 2, Christians who follow the moral edicts of the Bible consistently should advocate violence against non-Christians And hence he derives the conclusion that Christians cannot be anarchists, since anarchists oppose aggressive violence on principle, a subset of which is religion-based aggression.
And hence he derives the conclusion that Christians cannot be anarchists, since anarchists oppose aggressive violence on principle, a subset of which is religion-based aggression.
That's basically correct.
I think this discussion should be best continued after finding the piece of scripture that he actually cites as evidence for this argument, no?
That's problematic, because it does not exist. There is no advocation for violence, except in self defense, in the New Testament. It is made clear in the NT that the law of the Old Testament - the law that demanded blood for sin - no longer applies; that's the whole point of Christian doctrine. A consistent Christian can NEVER advocate violence against non-aggressors. When Molyneux claims that Christians who don't follow the Old Testament literally are not "true Christians", he is displaying a great deal of ignorance.
ryanpatgray:The COST, in this case is not violence but shedding personal delusions.
People who are willing to die for their faith will most likely only be silenced through violence. Final, fatal violence. If one expects to purge faith from humanity, one had better be willing to kill a whole lot of people.
Personally, I prefer the consistently libertarian idea of "live and let live".
MacFall: ryanpatgray:The COST, in this case is not violence but shedding personal delusions. People who are willing to die for their faith will most likely only be silenced through violence. Final, fatal violence. If one expects to purge faith from humanity, one had better be willing to kill a whole lot of people.
He is not a colectivist. He is working on an individual level, not a "whole society level".
MacFall: Personally, I prefer the consistently libertarian idea of "live and let live".
Which is Molyneux's position.
MacFall: That's problematic, because it does not exist. There is no advocation for violence, except in self defense, in the New Testament.
I have emailed you a place where there is.
ryanpatgray: MacFall: Personally, I prefer the consistently libertarian idea of "live and let live". Which is Molyneux's position.
I know that. But he doesn't speak that way. He uses collectivist reasoning to attack people of faith, describes us as statists, and says that we must be silenced "at any cost". That's a dangerous way of putting things.
ryanpatgray: MacFall: That's problematic, because it does not exist. There is no advocation for violence, except in self defense, in the New Testament. I have emailed you a place where there is.
You emailed me irrelevant Old Testament laws.
MacFall: ryanpatgray: MacFall: That's problematic, because it does not exist. There is no advocation for violence, except in self defense, in the New Testament. I have emailed you a place where there is. You emailed me irrelevant Old Testament laws.
It was not my intention to cite Bible scripture in this forum (it is supposed to be about economics) which is why I initially responded off the board. But, since you press the issue. Here goes:
Mark:
7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
MacFall: ryanpatgray: MacFall: Personally, I prefer the consistently libertarian idea of "live and let live". Which is Molyneux's position. I know that. But he doesn't speak that way. He uses collectivist reasoning to attack people of faith, describes us as statists, and says that we must be silenced "at any cost". That's a dangerous way of putting things.
He does not use colectivist reasoning. A person who claims to hold a particular set of beliefs should logically be assumed to hold the set of beliefs that they claim to hold. Again, he does not descibe you as a statist. Silenced? Where does he say silenced?
It was not my intention to cite Bible scripture in this forum (it is supposed to be about economics) which is why I initially responded off the board. But, since you press the issue. Here goes: Mark: 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
This is the General forum. I understand we're allowed to discuss non-economic issues here; if I'm wrong I'm sure the mods will tell me so.
As I pointed out in my return email, if one cares to look at this passage in context, Jesus is quite clearly and deliberately nullifying the Old Testament blood laws.
He does not use colectivist reasoning. A person who claims to hold a particular set of beliefs should logically be assumed to hold the set of beliefs that they claim to hold.
He claims that all Christians believe what only an extreme minority of Christians actually believe, throwing in all Christians into his definition of the GROUP.
Again, he does not descibe you as a statist.
He describes Christian doctrine as necessarily statist, and proclaims that all "true" Christians follow said doctrine. Simple deduction says that he considers Christians to be statists.
Silenced? Where does he say silenced?
Sorry; "cured". That doesn't invoke the idea of persons of faith voluntarily becoming atheists.
What does Jesus mean here?
MacFall: This is the General forum. I understand we're allowed to discuss non-economic issues here; if I'm wrong I'm sure the mods will tell me so.
MacFall: As I pointed out in my return email, if one cares to look at this passage in context, Jesus is quite clearly and deliberately nullifying the Old Testament blood laws.
Mark: Mark 77:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. 7:14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
MacFall: He claims that all Christians believe what only an extreme minority of Christians actually believe, throwing in all Christians into his definition of the GROUP.
MacFall: He describes Christian doctrine as necessarily statist
MacFall:Silenced? Where does he say silenced? Sorry; "cured". That doesn't invoke the idea of persons of faith voluntarily becoming atheists.
jimbojr: What does Jesus mean here?
What he said.
ryanpatgray:They were discussing PURITY laws.
They were discussing THE LAW OF MOSES. With the exception of the 10 commandments, ALL the law found between the books of Genesis and Joshua is invoked under the concept of תורה, or "tawrah", usually mistransliterated as "torah". There's no difference in kind between the laws of cleanliness and familial laws under תורה.
Besides, if he is supposed to be the Messiah based upon the Old Testament doesn't invalidating the old testament also invalidate his claim to be the Messiah?
He didn't "invalidate" the Old Testament. He fulfilled the law of the Old Testament, making its demands inapplicable to followers of His covenant. He also fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament.
MacFall: He describes Christian doctrine as necessarily statist Not in the same sense. It has a statist structure. What you think of when you hear the terms "king" or "kingdom". The word "lord" is a political term is Elizabethan English.
I refer to his claims that "true" Christians follow Mosaic law - which is statist.
MacFall:Sorry; "cured". That doesn't invoke the idea of persons of faith voluntarily becoming atheists. Really? I do not know about you but I have never been sent to the doctor's office at the point of a gun.
MacFall:Sorry; "cured". That doesn't invoke the idea of persons of faith voluntarily becoming atheists.
The mentally ill often are. Molyneux holds that believers are mentally ill - he says that right out. Now, as I've said, I know that he doesn't believe in forcing people to become atheists. But the language he uses does not manifest that belief. Read the phrase again: "God fever... must be cured at any cost". At best, that is a very... irresponsible way of putting it.
Frankly, I'm amused by people who want to "cure" me of the very conviction that drives me to agree with them on nearly everything else. But I find it somewhat insulting that people who don't even share my faith try to tell me what I am and am not allowed to hold in my faith. That's about as paternalistic as one can get without passing a law.
ryanpatgray:Molyneux talks in a free-flow style which is actually one of the things I like about his podcasts. His early podcasts were recordings he made while driving. He goes off topic quite often and I find it charming. It gives his podcasts a more human nature. take a listen if you do not believe me. You can find them at www.freedomainradio.com
jimbojr:Niccolo, you certainly seem to spend a lot of time thinking and writing about someone you consider to be so much in error. I wonder why that is so?
Because opposition to that which is incorrect is important?
Here is one passage that advocates the killing of non-believers, from Acts 3:
3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
3:23 seems to me to say that if you don't believe in Jesus Christ you should be killed.
MacFall: He didn't "invalidate" the Old Testament. He fulfilled the law of the Old Testament, making its demands inapplicable to followers of His covenant. He also fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament.
So, you do not have to follow any parts of the Old Testament except the the parts that we say because they justify our power. It sounds like a politition who ignores those parts of the constitution that they don't like and insists on following other parts of the constitution when it is politically convenient.
MacFall: The mentally ill often are. Molyneux holds that believers are mentally ill - he says that right out. Now, as I've said, I know that he doesn't believe in forcing people to become atheists. But the language he uses does not manifest that belief. Read the phrase again: "God fever... must be cured at any cost". At best, that is a very... irresponsible way of putting it.
If it sounds that way it is only because you have been conditioned to expect governments to do that sort of thing.
MacFall: Frankly, I'm amused by people who want to "cure" me of the very conviction that drives me to agree with them on nearly everything else. But I find it somewhat insulting that people who don't even share my faith try to tell me what I am and am not allowed to hold in my faith. That's about as paternalistic as one can get without passing a law.
Let us assume that you met someone on the street who told you that he believed that Moby *** was the literal word of God. You ask him
"So, you believe that there really was whaling ship named The Pequad?”
“No, of course I don't believe that. don't be silly.”
“But you take Moby *** literally?”
“Yes.”
“OK. But you do believe that Ishmael's life was saved by floating on Queequeg's coffin after the ship sank?”
“No, how dare you tell me what I believe!”
“But I thought you said you took Moby *** as the literal word of God?”
Edit: once again an innocent word has been censored. In case you don't get it from the context i am refering to a novel by Herman Melville.
3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Actually, I think this is not a statement about corporeal death. It specifically states "soul". It looks to me like the "people" are those who ascend to heaven, and those destroyed are those that don't.
I think that it is also interesting that many of those who sacrificed selflessly against state power did so through because of a Christian ethic. The Englishman who prosecuted Charles I did it because he searched his soul and felt a religious duty to do so. Faith can give one courage that logic can not.
I am also curious why anyone who advocates anarchism would try and demand that someone else must be cut from society at any cost, if indeed that someone else only wants to believe what they believe and go about their life. The "problem" isn't being Christian, it is violently forcing your belief on others. Convincing is ok, violence is not.
Is there a difference between ethics and morality? Ethics leads me to believe that I can do what I want, as long as I do not infringe on the liberty of others (murder, robbery, etc). Morality leads me to also refrain from adultery, prostitution, drunkedness, etc. I won't violently force my morality on you, but I will demand that you honor my ethics. Are the two complementary, or exclusive?
One hundred trillion Zimbabwe dollar note