by Michael Gilson De Lemos

Libertarianism encourages arbitration and informal procedures, and most Libertarians are deeply aware of the value of fully informed juries and a radical simplification of the law. In recent years I have developed a simple model of how this can work and some associated issues that make excellent talking points in helping people imagine how all this would work.


A great problem that Libertarians have in discussing justice procedures is what I call the Regulated Justice Model. This common model presumes that all conflict must be dealt with by the State, and can only be addressed reactively, punitively or in civil matters, with financial compensations or fines. Justice is the province of Government. I propose in discussion that people consider a very different model--that Justice is the private property and concern of the individual, and that a court as is commonly understood is the last, not first, resort in conflict. To work, society must be educated to think proactively, of how not to impose, but build in justice. People must think not in terms of reactive punishment but solving the matter at hand, preferably so it is not seen again. This is not as complex as it sounds.

The crucial first step is actually the Libertarian pledge, the promise not to advocate coercion to solve social problems. I am saying, in other words, that the pledge is the 20% of effort that accomplishes in time 80% of the result, by getting people to personally commit to doing no harm before setting forth various solutions. The pledge is in effect a sort of social Hippocratic oath that we may not be able to cure, but we will not at least harm. And I note that drilling that pledge in with examples for the young creates an active and intentional moral atmosphere. Virtue in our society is, strangely enough, not viewed in moral matters as a positive good. The majority of people in effect psychologically coerce themselves into some degree of socially constructive behavior. Think of Freud, Judeo-Christianity and the threat of divine wrath, or cartoon images of people making decisions with a little angel and devil self on each shoulder. We live in a society of the morally schizoid, people with split moral personalities warring for control. So in coercing themselves, Libertarians do well to realize that it therefore seems natural to people to coerce others.

Libertarians bear a very different insight--that morality is natural and enjoyable in a non-coercive and therefore trusting society. People may confidently unite for mutual benefit, without wasting time and resources on social manipulations from those who believe their lack of proaction, in creating an emergency, puts moral claims on others. It is therefore a conflict resolving society. Libertarians seek positive resolution for conflict.


Several societies promote the resolution model in certain areas as once happened in the Early American Republic in many instances. In Japan, courts simply will not hear neighborhood disputes until the two parties have sat down with neighbors, had a chat over tea, and tried on several occasions to work things out. There is a positive social reward for appearing reasonable and able to resolve conflicts with ingenuity, to take two conflicting views and find a third way that satisfies everyone. Such persons are admired and respected. An American may say, "I got a smart lawyer and showed him!" A Japanese may say in contrast, "I met with him, gave him a gift, we realized we could handle things differently and I made a friend."

This attitude still exists in societies in the countryside of North America, but is rapidly disappearing. As a Libertarian, one can see that the argument that this is the result of urbanization is nonsense given hoe the Japanese handle things, and thus may legitimately ask,"Why are we designing our society to reward conflict?" Part of the meaning of non-initiation of force is what is called condign or proportionate behavior that looks forward to undoing conflict. It is very important for Libertarians to be attuned to this in understanding how to create Libertarian Justice Models.

A different but similar cultural model is to be found in Latin courts. Many communities have informal "grandpa" councils of elderly men of sagacity and calm whose job is to not only resolve, but prevent disputes. They will avail themselves of any mechanism, from calling on the mother and the Priest to ingenious resolutions so people can save face. After all, the point of society is friendship and conciliation, is it not? A judgement forced down someone's throat is quite worthless, no? People in such an environment feel understandably that Court, for a Latin, is either a disgrace or a theater to express their indignancy as a prelude to the Judge suggesting a negotiation. Americans arrested in Latin countries are invariably shocked when Judges ask them first thing, "Does your mother know where you are?"

In recent years, Libertarian researchers such as Michael van Notten have shown how in Somalia and other clan societies, arbitration is viewed not as an imposition but a valuable right, and like the socialite who must have his American Express Card in the famous commercial, until he has a respected Arbitrator to whom he can refer disputes, he won't leave home, literally without one. This echoes the oft-misrepresented patron or godfather system of Ancient Roman Law. Indeed, the Ancient Romans meant it and knew what they were talking about when they described their system as natural and Universal. With a few minor changes, most of its features are as eminently portable as systems like Linux or Java claim to be. Indeed, Libertarian Law, in the wider culture, may arguably in its simplicity and portability as a refinement of Natural Law and Common Law--not just of Old England, but the common conflict resolution and prevention procedures of many cultures--become an area of Asylum or Sanctuary to those frustrated by lesser systems. For much of the Libertarian critique is such systems tend, as current law does, to amalgamate religious, socialist and other imperatives that may work for some, but not for all--and at that, very inconsistently.

What is interesting here is the remnants of the idea that Justice belongs to The Person. One goes not to government for Justice, but to community mechanisms such as neighborhood courts or in the last extremity full juries, not so much as to resolve problems, as publicize and bless an arrived at solution. Libertarian Justice, in this model, is not a public good. For Libertarians, so-called public goods are abominations, public bads. Rather, the Process of Justice is a private property, a natural concomitant of the idea as fair judgement by others as an inalienable right. It is not imposed on sinful man but arises and built in as a desirable in the course of conduct of reasoning man.


The analogy here is to quality control. In the current model, we try and inspect (punish) quality in and solve(reactively) problems. Libertarians propose educating, starting with the pledge, building quality in and analyzing and publicizing (proactive and permanent) solutions. Libertarians want to put a Justice Procedure in people's heads so that they are empowered to resolve conflicts, indeed prevent them and use them to highlight opportunity. They want to develop Mises' idea that freedom, as a social method, and indeed political economics, involves catallaxis. Catallaxis is a very interesting term. It means to convert adversaries or strangers into exchange-partners, friends and allies.

And in social morality, Libertarians have a great, as I indicated, insight. They view evil as unprofitable as surely as they do not believe profit is evil. They in fact believe evil is dumb. That is why it is evil. It is socially stupid. It is like a lout issuing gas at a museum gathering. The fool, presuming he is not suffering from some mental distress, clearly is not mature and does not even understand why he is there. There is a great line in the movie Lawrence of Arabia where the Saudi prince states that while others may not harm you due to high-sounding reasons of philosophy and religion, he would not dream to do so out of mere courtesy. Which is the more reliable motive, he tells his listeners, I leave to you. Libertarians are like that. They are thinking out courtesy as a moral imperative in a very important sense. Their vision is thus reliable. Justice as fairness, a popular idea among philosophers, is confusing a sometimes-desirable end state with the process.

What I propose to tie this together is to model Libertarian Justice as a process, what I have called the Filter of Justice. To be properly resolved, there should be facilitation, prevention, mentoring, negotiation, resettlement, conciliation, mediation, arbitration, and jury boards to filter problems upward. Most problems are not the same, and involve different factors in different degrees. And as any Judge knows, half the time the litigants themselves do not understand their own case. Courts deal with cases that do not in logic belong there, are sucked in only by the growing need to bring all under government control and taxation.

Each board or litigant selected tribunal instead would handle an increasingly complex problem in a fashion that would allow it to drive it back down. . Because it is systematic, readily teachable, and can use resources readily available and that many would be happy to volunteer, it attracts cheap implementation. Almost like a checklist, each level examines if the case needs facilitation in communication, is a failure of prevention, needs socialization and mentoring, negotiation to clarify goals, total restructuring as the case is really FUBAR do to contractual or other errors, they can conciliate or work together. If they cannot, mediation seeks a middle, you cut, I'll pick solution such as diplomats and more divorce lawyers have learned to craft.

Only then is arbitration--opinion by experts as to whether your case can be won and is worth pursuing--even contemplatable, let alone calling a full jury, whose original role was to deal with the suspicion of serious skullduggery or social conflict.

Psychologists, Personnel Officers, Standards Assessors, and many a Small Claims Judge seeking to drive a mountain-from-molehill matter back down to the community, and Professional Arbitrators will nod with familiarity at this model. It has never been stated, but many professional arbitrators and corporate and union conflict prevention experts use these exact concepts in that order as a checklist. Citizen created conflict resolution courses that have arisen spontaneously to solve even international problems have also several of these ideas.


They are not unlike the questions anyone would ask, such as a neighbor, when asked to give an opinion. Libertarians, within the context of rights, Liberty, consent, would proceed in a more structured yet simple way from the administrative chaos where even the lawyers must research the alleged law.

Will separating the parties due the job? Is this a miscommunication? Is the evidence pure and the issue preventable? Is this really a culture clash or lack of socialization? Do the parties even know what they want? Is a third party order all that is needed for people to be satisfied? How will they work together again, or at least fight productively? Can they, having resolved these prior matters, now intelligently work together again to solve the problem themselves? And so on. Libertarians, as they develop these models, try them out so they have specifically Libertarian skills for making them happen, will become not so much experts at Justice as providing a procedural model that anyone can use for themselves. People who learn specific conflict prevention skill are unlikely to be expensive or time-consuming litigants before Libertarian Trained Juries. People are expected to be part of the process. In criminal matters also there can be hospices as are being tried in some countries where potential criminals can turn themselves in before they cross the line and find a better environment. Libertarians, by calling for reduction of government to police, local and privatized levels, are saying Justice is not a coercive process from above, but a productive process led from all direction by the moral leaders.

It is said that an informed consumer is the best customer. The Libertarian Justice Filter can go a long way to creating that self-informed Justice consumer. It is certainly a good starting point for analyzing, whether as a user, anthropologist, or political sociologist, what is really happening and getting disconnected when something goes wrong.

Governments are not insensitive to these issues and attempted to coerce people with pseudo-arbitrational alternatives. Neighborhood Conciliation, Community Policing, administrative courts, 6-person juries, Domestic Violence teams, informal regulatory 'letters', Small Claims Courts, compulsory arbitration, and plea-bargains are touted as non-judicial alternatives. Libertarians have supported these alternatives warily, as while it is good to have alternatives, the fact that the keystone of true community privatization and capstone of careful management review is missing.

These are not truly voluntary and thus become part of the system, another layer of confusion; while there are no standards or success conditions that are market (i.e. consumer) driven so we can even tell reliably how or if they work and by what standard. They have really evolved into a coral reef of even more confusing procedures where power-mad judicial clerks, legal aid attorneys, legal philosophers in search of a fashion, bribable officials and lazy or overwhelmed judges flourish in a new, and sinister, legal ecology.


Libertarians should be careful not to be confused by these current official models, trying to understand them as being more or less Libertarian. Libertarians, as an example, have debated whether Plea Bargains are just or not. Is it fair to offer a deal, even if it reduces crime? --so goes a common concern. However, some studies have shown that communities that do not use plea bargains lower crime and lower sentences as police are not encouraged to make poorly investigated arrests. Libertarian theorists have opposed the district attorney/government prosecutor/police system as inherently criminal, a position taken by the Founding Fathers as encouraging the power of government. Many Libertarians are quite surprised to learn that police forces, far from being viewed as a legitimate function of government as some Libertarian or Free Market theorists maintain, were viewed until their introduction in the mid-1800's as an excess of government power. Critics of the time warned that police were incompatible with Liberty, a moral boomerang where bribed and lazy police would soon lower the whole moral tone of society while encouraging a warlike violence. Anyone seeing the occupying-army ethos on Police TV epics, or reading of the recent dismissal of entire sections of the police forces for corruption and barbaric crimes--after years of citizen political struggle in cities from New Orleans to Los Angeles and even directly under the control of Congress in Washington D.C--might well believe the old critics to be prophets.

. In this context, Libertarians may simultaneously take a dim view of cynical manipulations of the Plea Bargain by smooth evil-doers or lazy police and prosecutors. In either case, Plea Bargains are not the fundamental issue. There are several factors to be kept in mind in developing Libertarian ideas on the subject. It helps put the official position of the US Party e.g. encouragement of juries, arbitration and judicial alternatives, victim restitution, juries and self-defense, and the call for re-legalization of all victimless "crimes." in context.


Much of the workability of a Libertarian system comes from realizing that Justice is simple, it is the institution of government and the anti-rights attitudes that it re-inforces that makes things look complicated. The fundamental problem of Political Philosophy for Libertarians is not in regulating crime, but raising awareness that most crime is actually a misnomer used to cover up real crime upon a disoriented population.

Most crime isn't. Libertarians should keep in mind the need to educate on a fundamental concept: that 98% of what is called crime would not be prosecuted in a Libertarian society. Why?

? Many things called crime would not be so defined (e.g. victimless and regulatory crimes such as withdrawing more than $2,000 from your bank account at once without filing certain reports );

? Many social causes would vanish ( e.g. racial tensions linked to poverty) or

? There would be more proactive citizen education on social bonds (e.g. Libertarian pledge).

? Studies and cultural comparisons show that most real "crimes" are the result of temporary mental disturbances that are not prosecuted in other countries (e.g. crimes of passion or revenge, domestic quarrels, crimes done post-partum) and would be handled through the health system.

? Crime is not the problem that it is believed. This is what I call the autotoxic effect of government.

Some examples are poignant, and a review of statistics--not from scholarly surveys, but original police reports, which is rarely done-- can be quite myth-shattering. In an analysis of crimes in the Pittsburgh area ( home of the Johnny Gammadge shooting, where a Black football star relative was shot to death for holding a cell phone shortly after Clinton had called on citizens to get cell phones in their cars to fight crime in Black neighborhoods) that I did for a State legislator, I found interesting things. I discovered you were more likely to suffer financial loss or physical injury from government action; typically, governments do not track their own activities and it was discovered that police chases, robberies, false arrests and shootings averaged 5 daily; forfeitures averaged $100,000 per day with police sergeants driving Ferraris.

Nowhere do such shenanigans appear on crime statistics. But even regularly reported crimes are imperfect. When one cross-ads FBI and local statistics they do not match. So what is the amount of crime? The US government blames this on definitional differences, which is bad enough. But there are many hidden structural problems. Most jurisdictions do not report false accusations as misreported crimes, for example. There is no incentive to do so: funding is based on reported crimes. In a Florida jurisdiction 72% of crimes are now domestics, which are now loved by police as they are by policy not investigated, the husband is invariably arrested, and generate reams of overtime. What happened to all the robbers who previously occupied police time? They are released, grand robbery turned into disorderly conduct in many cases. Prosecutors refuse to collect information on conviction rates and similar operating information that would be expected from a bakery. We put more management skill into donuts than justice. Libertarians view this as intolerable, the first curative step being the re-assertion of voluntary structures.


Libertarians, by dint of interest in these issues, understandably also are aware of the need for some very radical and detailed reforms and restorations of procedural rights. Actually, one can do a lot without entering the more esoteric reaches of Libertarian discussion. Here is a partial yet thought-provoking list.

? At present no one knows what the law is. One example is the practice of post legislative technical amendments" by bureaucrats before the law is actually published. Even legislators are now confessing they are amazed to discover what they passed, while lawyers and judges pontificate on the alleged intent of the legislature.

? All players in the process--attorneys, juries--would be bonded and liable for their actions.

? Community or private conciliation and policing would be encouraged--and where tried, this Libertarian idea has been proven quite successful--in preventing tensions from boiling over into crime or even justifiable violence. Insurance structures would automatically compensate victims and victims of false arrest.

? Many Libertarians also encourage some degree of personal restitution as socially and psychologically valuable for victim and offender.

? Juries would be expected to be pre-trained, fully informed, run the case, and volunteer (as in Britain).

? Legal procedure would be vastly simplified and considered part of youth education as in the early American Republic, where lawyers could only receive donations and the right to attorney also meant the entire family and friends of the accused, thus restoring absolute privilege to family relations and probably bad news for attorneys and prosecutors who get confessions by threatening arrest of family members.

? Also, beyond Miranda protections, many Libertarians have become aware of the Common Law prohibition on taking any testimony from the accused, as existed in the early Republic, except as a summary statement or full confession before the court, as something to be restored. No confession would be admissible unless made before a full jury, as was originally intended.

? Searches and seizures without counsel would in all likelihood not be allowed, though "hue and cry" entries, available to any citizen, would.

? Some Libertarians have even proposed along with the presumption of innocence a presumption of temporary insanity, particularly given the abusive and coercive nature of our governments and increasing pollution of our environment (some 90% of pollutants are produced by--surprise--governments that possess sovereign immunity, with increasingly documented weird temporary effects on behavior. As I write this, persons I know at an Industrial facility began complaining of outbursts of temper and violent insults among co-workers. Then the hair began to fall out. Now it turns out the government authorized the hapless owners to build on a poison chemical landfill).

? Indeed, it must be kept in mind that the Juristic system would be looked at as the last, not first resort in a dispute.

? Libertarians are also very concerned on evidentiary issues. Today, evidence is not only regularly concocted by police too dull to fake confessions (up to about 85% of police testimony is perjured, according to confidential surveys of the police themselves for consulting companies) but the logical structure of what evidence is admitted is fatally flawed. The reason? Deviation from old common law "statute of frauds" type requirements, where documentation was required. He said--he said cases therefore clutter the courts.

? Evidence chains are a joke, as recent scandals where police faked fingerprints by simply switching fingerprint card results through the wonders of photocopying have shown. There would be strict accounting of evidence.

? Accusations based on witness testimony (he said-she said) would not likely be permitted; people would be expected to take proactive measures to protect themselves and certify the validity of transactions. This is pretty radical, as, contrary to popular belief, under the present regime courts have ruled the law need not be clear, consistent, or fairly applied.

? Innocence standards restoration. Incredibly, in the US judges may jail people who gave truthful answers to prosecutor's bungled questions because they "should have known " what the prosecutor meant; in some States the law appears to say appeals in death penalty cases that are based on government misconduct may not be made until the accused is executed; in rape cases a woman's consent is now considered insufficient; and double standards in rape, domestic violence, racial, and other cases are common. Bad laws encourage bad people to populate the loopholes; under the present system surveys indicate that from 50%-80% of criminal accusations of rape, drug possession, fraud and so forth are false and concocted by the accuser, police, vengeful persons, glory seeking prosecutors or as clerical errors.

? People who make unsubstantiated accusations would be automatically prosecuted.

? Many Libertarians realize that in such cases where the chain of evidence cannot be guaranteed, jury judgements are inherently unjust. Most Libertarians understand that many abuses arise from the cynical non-collection of information that would allow things to be evaluated by the government, and the lack of both tight neighborhood controls and transparent citizen inspections. Indeed, as mentioned above, many Libertarian studies have demonstrated that most crime statistics are quite unreliable and regularly manipulated by government officials to justify their jobs.

? Examples include alarmism on children with guns--which Libertarians demonstrated were inflated to over 100 times-- to parking violations and domestic violence arrests, which move in tandem with divorce laws and ease of police setting their own overtime. (When Pittburgh, at my recommendation, cut overtime, parking violations plummeted. Incidentally, an inspection of parking meters in 1995 showed that not only were they over 90% inaccurate, chiseling parkers out of time by about 15%, but police knew which ones were worst but were under no obligation to report them. This is all the more poignant when we realize that meters were invented as a scheme to pay for local functions and thus eventually abolish taxes.)

? One country that repays study, statistically and structurally is the in some respects relatively semi- libertarian Switzerland. People have riot gates in there homes, assault weapons are in each home by law, arrested persons who are found innocent are paid a salary for each day of incarceration, and tight community control of police means police can lose their jobs for not saluting the person they arrest in some areas (compare to regular police brutality and discourtesy as shown in shows such as" Cops," which while technical violations would not be prosecuted by any judge, many of whom have former police ties.)

? Real information. Using Switzerland as a provocative example is again thought-provoking. Despite a racial and language cross population that would be considered an ethnic nightmare in the US, proactive community training along with these other measures resulted in a murder rate in Switzerland that would actually not be tracked as statistically insignificant on FBI reporting sheets. Think about that. In addition, it was exceeded many times by killings by escaped lunatics, ski accidents, murders by rowdy tourists, and suicides.

? Libertarian theorists are now discussing whether prisons and punishment even make sense. The old common law, both British and Roman, simply exiled people back to their homes until their family could vouch for them again. This is a common practice in many Latin countries still, particularly in the country, where judges continue most cases indefinitely until restitution is paid, the family or clan (this could also be a bonding company or insurance group in an industrialized venue) vouches for the offender, and usually a course of treatment and counseling upon consensus of all concerned.

? Latin countries also suggest some interesting lines of action, particularly in comparison to the North American practice of arresting the person who retaliates against violence and debates on Capital punishment. Interestingly, historically many Latin countries do not punish vengeance killings but forbid capital punishment, with the seemingly (to Anglo-Germanics) paradoxical result of low murder rates and immediate calming of disputes by the informal "grandpa courts" and other means to soothe tensions, and whose decisions are recognized by formal courts as findings of fact.

? A different vocabulary. In general, Libertarians reject conceptions such as "tough on crime" or "soft on crime" --they are interested in permanently solving the problem, by strict adherence to human rights in the application of scientific method via voluntary, non-coercive and non-governmental social institutions.


It is for these reasons Libertarians view government not as a solution but an inherent and morally unsound cause of the problem that creates the dilemmas it then uses to justify its activities. Libertarians realize that these ideas are a bit ahead of the curve for most people, but these ideas also allow them to formulate a program for systematic justice that many people can agree with. Looking at these ideal and at first glance utopian conditions, Libertarians can propose many immediate practical improvements.

? First, Libertarians familiar with management and reporting practices call increasingly for honest and correct statistics according to general management standards such as Total Quality and ISO. They don't mean years after the fact and easily manipulated statistical surveys so beloved by lazy academics and politicized regulators. They want real-time, summary, original data from arrest to recidivism statistics so that citizens can reliably tell what is going on as it happens, just like an industrial operation, with massive privatization and devolution of police, judicial and penitentiary functions and bonding (i.e. no sovereign immunity) of all participants (a Libertarian conference on this is being discussed by LIO, the Reason Foundation and a contact group of distinguished management consultants and government officials); and restoration of Jury and Grand Jury supremacy. This involves encouragement of tight neighborhood (think Jefferson's standard of 5-10 square blocks) control or inspection, arbitration, restitution, Libertarian citizen training and conciliation alternatives. At present, most governments, court systems and police departments do not meet their own pathetic accounting, reporting or other standards; much less truly serious management ones, and very little transparency exists.

? Second, a restoration of simple common law standards combined with exploration of private and voluntary alternatives, including actual citizen approval of legislation (see further article in upcoming July Florida Liberty on "technical adjustments" of the law by lobbyists and regulators that actually reverse legislation); including massive re-legalization of victimless and technical "crimes" and strict observance of civil rights. Something is wrong when prison guards are holding alleged gladiatorial shows of prisoners who 2 decades ago would not have been there to begin with. There is in fact a lot of improvement possible before wading into the more esoteric ideas of Libertarianism; but at present it is Libertarians who are leading the charge, precisely because their systematic philosophy helps them highlight and locate the problems and their systemic causes.

? Third, a simplification of law to its original concern, initiation of force, and including a radical reduction or substitution of punishments, instead of the present situation characterized to me by a Federal Judge as only two existing and random punishments: "50 years and $500,000 --minimum, or maximum." It is very likely that we would in time see few punishments for anything exceeding a year as societies move towards a more non-coercive and peaceful mode of life; we certainly should move away from 12 year old abused kids with IQ's of 50 getting the chair.


In such a context Libertarian statements on Plea Bargains and other technical features of the present system must be viewed with care. On the one hand, Libertarians are aware that much of what happens today is just a cynical tool; on the other, a welcome and sensible alternative. The real underlying problem is the coercive government system, and the poisonous idea that all ills can be cured by social coercion. Such a structure can be improved, but not cured, piecemeal. Asking many Libertarians what they think of Plea Bargains and many similar topics is like asking a doctor in the middle of the bubonic plague whether he thinks fever is a healthy or bad sign. He will understandably respond in a short e-mail or conversation based on the patient he is looking at, since fever is sometimes bad and others good in such circumstances.

But the real problem is getting the quacks out of the way and curing the plague; the present attitude of curing plague with aspirin is the real illness, and the real crime. Libertarians have a very different approach, informed by wide and detailed consideration of many cases. They see that Justice is a natural state built by doing basic, sensible things, like respect for rights and Liberty. They see it as a way of people working together in an atmosphere of consent. In a way, they are like doctors who realize that health does not come from restricting the patient and making him a cripple in his own mind.

Things like the Justice Filter concept act as both proactive and restorative health programs. Things like the pledge are the immunizing agent that foils even the god of plagues. One time, everyone suffered from bouts of malaria and smallpox, and numerous ills from unhealthy food and lice from filthy living. Life was plague. Involved ideologies were created to explain why it must be so. Men sought not health, but for illness to be fairly distributed. That was normality. Doctors rushed about with bizarre cures that made things worse and were hailed as compassionate. Then a few arose who saw both prevention by first doing no harm and positive habits as what was needed, and were denounced for not proposing immediate nostrums. It took a while for people to hear the message that suffering was abnormal. The truth is that not coercing nature, soap and clean water, and a systematic approach respectful of the patient have saved more millions than, as the poet said, all the prescriptions ever wrote.

So in time it will be with Justice, and the devil expelled from its detail.

Check out... 

*The Libertarian International Organization (LIO) LIO is an assistance network for rights activists worldwide. Site has growing number of useful Links and Projects.

* MG will be facilitating a " Global Workshop on the Libertarian Agenda " sponsored by the International Society for Individual Liberty and LIO. Please Press "Speakers" at

<BACK to The MG Index