Healing Our World:
The Other Piece of the Puzzle
Healing Our World:The Other Piece of the Puzzle
The Other Piece of the Puzzle
We've seen that government, as we know it today, is not the benevolent protector we hoped it would be. Instead, it is a mechanism by which we direct the guns of government at our neighbors out of fear that they might choose differently than we would like them to. We reap as we sow. In trying to control others, we find ourselves controlled. In failing to honor our neighbor's choice, we create a world of poverty and strife. Even when we defend ourselves against those who take aggressive action, we begin by becoming aggressors ourselves. With the guns of government, we tax our neighbors to establish exclusive, subsidized police and military monopolies. Like most monopolies, these protection agencies are more expensive and less effective than they would be in the absence of aggression. As we learned in Chapter 20 (National Defense), actions undertaken for national security may have endangered us more than having no defense at all! As long as we employ the guns of government to force our neighbors to our will, aggression will be the instrument by which we enslave ourselves. This is as true of global government as it is of our local and national ones. To many, unification through world government symbolizes the end of war. Unification can be achieved in one of two ways: by choice (non-aggression) or by force (aggression). The result we get is very different depending on the means we use to get there. For example, the physical and emotional joining that occurs spontaneously between lovers differs considerably from the forcible unification of rape. Global unity, achieved or maintained by aggression instead of by honoring our neighbor's choice, is the antithesis of universal love as well. Let's examine five areas that world government (sometimes
referred to as the New World Order) would address to see if its consummation
would be an act of love or rape. The "carrying capacity" of the earth depends on the type of society it sustains. The earth has a lower carrying capacity for hunting and gathering populations than for farming societies. Improved farming techniques regularly increase the yield per acre and the earth's carrying capacity along with it. (2) Additional space in densely populated areas can be provided by multilevel buildings. Clearly, the carrying capacity of the earth changes with how we use the space that we have. The high standard of living enjoyed by the densely populated Japanese suggest that we are nowhere near reaching the earth's carrying capacity. Perhaps by the time we do reach it, colonizing other planets will provide another way of expanding. In all likelihood, however, we will not need to worry about exceeding the earth's carrying capacity. As societies become wealthier, the number of births drops dramatically. (3) In the United States, we have come close to stabilizing our population, even though children are partially subsidized through income tax exemptions and encouraged by the structure of our welfare system. The reasons people have more children in developing countries is not difficult to discern. In a rural economy, children contribute quite early to a family's financial well-being. Farming, especially in Third World countries, depends heavily on manual tasks simple enough for children to perform. If a world government were to limit the number of children a rural couple could have, they would lose a source of wealth-creating labor. As a family, they would be poorer and more likely to go hungry. A ban on children would probably create more famine, not less. As always, aggression-through-government is likely to aggravate the problem, not solve it. In an industrialized economy such as ours, manual labor, especially child labor, creates little wealth relative to the work of experienced, skilled adults. As a result, children are a net drain on family resources for many more years than they are in rural economies. As nations become more affluent, people have the incentive to raise fewer children. Thus, the most effective way to control population is to
increase the Wealth Pie by doing away with the aggression-through-government
that keeps the Third World poor. The most effective way to achieve zero
population growth is to encourage the worldwide practice of non-aggression
so that all people can climb the Ladder of Affluence. As detailed in Chapter 18 (Beacon to the World), the clearing of the rainforests results from aggressive government policy. Third World governments fail to honor or defend the homesteading claims of the natives who inhabit them, especially when timber companies pay the heads of state for such oversights. The licensing laws and other restrictions on the creation of wealth imposed on the population (Chapter 18: Beacon to the World) drives people to exploit the rainforests as well. The same heads of state responsible for creating the rainforest problem will determine who represents their country in a world government just as these officials currently select who will attend the United Nations. Obviously, these representatives will defend the exploitation of the rainforest. Special interest groups that profit from destroying the rainforests will lobby world government representatives in much the same way they lobby our domestic officials to cut down our national forests. The representatives do not personally profit from long-term planning for the rainforests, because they have no homesteading or ownership claim. By turning the rainforests over to special interest groups, however, these officials can be amply rewarded from the short-term profit the rainforests generate. World government representatives will have every incentive to turn their backs on the plight of the rainforests and their native inhabitants. Representatives who are steadfast in their determination to preserve the rainforests will be pressured by other domestic special interest groups to sacrifice the rainforests to gain votes for their particular cause. A person willing to sacrifice domestic special interests for the global good will be replaced by a candidate able to maintain the lucrative special interest support. Special interests will influence the world government as they do in every country today. As a result, world government will not protect the rainforests any better than national governments do. A policy that permits the destruction of the rainforests will do so on a global level, instead of a national one. We have only to observe how our national forests are sacrificed locally (Chapter 8: Destroying the Environment) to see what we can expect globally. The way to protect the rainforests, as described in Chapter 18 (Beacon to the World), is to recognize the homesteading claims of the native inhabitants. Historically, governments have failed to do this. Instead, native people (including those indigenous to the United States), have been ruthlessly pushed aside so that special interests may be served.4 More aggression-through-government will be part of the problem, not the solution. Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of individuals or tribes owning part of the earth. Ownership conjures up the image of a selfish other withholding a part of Mother Earth from other fellow humans. A global "commons" sounds more inclusive, more sharing. These images, however, are sheer illusion, perhaps even perpetrated by the special interests that profit from such an outlook. Because selfish owners want to profit as much as possible from their land, they have incentive to treat their property in a way that increases its value to others. The price that owners can get for the land depends on how other members of society value the care given to it. A selfish owner has incentive to heed the priorities of the whole. What would prevent a special interest group from purchasing the rainforests? Nothing as long as they were willing to pay the full costs of them. Today, the rainforests cost special interests only a convenient payoff to those who control these lands and do not benefit by long term management. The price of buying rainforest property from owners who can profit from long-term care would be much higher. Exploitation is no longer affordable. Government officials who control the commons are as selfish as property owners. However, these officials profit only when they favor the special interests over the common good. If those controlling the rainforests nobly attempt to do otherwise, special interest groups probably will see that they lose their jobs. The interests of the few work against the interests of the many. With aggression, looking out for Number 1 goes against the welfare of the whole. Without aggression, the same drive becomes harnessed for the greater good. We truly live in a win-win world! Endangered Species For example, elephant hunting has been banned in Kenya. In 1989, these animals numbered only 19,000, down from 65,000 in 1979.5 On the other hand, in Zimbabwe, homesteading claims of natives to elephants on their land have been respected. Elephant products can be legally sold. Naturally, the natives protect their valuable elephants from poachers. The natives raise as many elephants as possible so they can sponsor safaris and sell elephant ivory, hide, and meat. As a result, the elephant population has increased from 30,000 to 43,000 over the past ten years. People will protect the environment when they own it and profit from it. We never worry about cows and horses becoming extinct. They are plentiful because we own them and profit from their use. We have motivation to make sure they propagate. Ownership encourages effective stewardship of wildlife, just as it encourages protection of the land. Although it happens from time to time, few people are foolish enough to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. On Sea. The same principle applies to marine life as well. In some states, homesteading of oyster beds is permitted. Private oyster beds are more prolific and profitable than public ones. The owners have incentive to invest money in caring for the beds and harvesting them sustainably. (6) Unfortunately, the guns of government are used to prevent individuals and groups from homesteading parcels of ocean other than oyster beds. As a result, no one has incentive to fish sustainably. In the first half of this century, shrimp fishers along the Gulf coast attempted to homestead these areas as a group to prevent overfishing. (7) The government refused to recognize their claim. Many other environmental benefits result from ocean ownership. If an oil tanker wanted permission to cross a fishery, owners likely would demand that the tanker carry adequate insurance or have safeguards against rupture. Insurance costs would be lower for ships with such safeguards, thus encouraging careful construction of tankers. As a result, oil spills would be less likely. Oil companies would be ready to deal with the few accidents that occurred since delay would increase the cost of righting the wrong. Owners would also be more likely to invest in artificial reefs to bolster the fish population. Whalers could operate only with the permission of the owners, much as hunters must request permission to stalk deer on privately owned land. Ocean owners profit most by making sure that the valuable species in their region are not hunted to extinction. Migrating species could be protected by agreements between adjoining owners. Since some ocean plots might be quite expensive, corporations or conservation-oriented groups might purchase them. Conservationists could simply buy ocean lots favored by species they wish to protect, much as the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society purchase land today. If conservationists did not wish to buy ocean plots outright, they could pay owners for hunting rights and then not exercise them. Instead of lobbying government officials in the hopes of achieving effective legislation, they could buy protection of the environment directly! World government would be unlikely to institute these reforms.
Traditionally, governments have taken charge of the oceans much as they
have done with the rainforests, disregarding the claims of those who have
tended them. Instead, governments have turned these sensitive environments
over to special interest groups. Since these groups do not actually own
these areas, they cannot profit by giving them long-term care. If special
interests groups had to purchase ocean plots or rainforests, instead of
simply paying off government officials, destroying these environments would
no longer be profitable. Only long-term planning would protect such an expensive
investment. Every week, I scan the prestigious Science magazine for the latest in the global warming debate. Scientists cannot seem to agree on whether or not global temperatures are rising unnaturally. Satellite data from 1979 to 1988 reveal no warming trend at all.4 Surface measurements reveal an increase from 1880 to 1940, but little upward movement after 1940, the years of heaviest industrial activity (see Figure 21.1). (5) Some scientists believe the increase in temperature earlier in this century was simply due to the urbanization of rural areas during that time. Urban areas tend to trap heat more than rural ones. (6) Temperature-sensing de-vices are usually located in cities and might reflect these fluctuations. If, in spite of evidence to the contrary, we assume that the world is warming, what would cause it? The earth has gone through several Ice Ages and warming cycles without human help and might be doing so again. Indeed, some evidence suggests that the ozone level correlates better with sunspot activity than with human endeavors. (7) Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), for example, were introduced in the second half of this century, while the largest temperature increases were seen before 1940. (5) CFCs do destroy ozone, but so do volcanoes. In 1976, for example, the eruption of the Alaskan Augustine Volcano produced 570 times as much chlorine as was put into the atmosphere by CFCs and other chlorine emissions in 1975! (8) Consequently, banning CFCs would have minor impact on ozone levels. However, stopping the sale of CFCs at gunpoint, if necessary might have significant impacts on the health of the poor in developing nations. The CFCs are used primarily as refrigerants. Current substitutes
are more costly and less effective.9 Worldwide refitting and shifting to
these substitutes may cost as much as $100 billion within the next decade.
Unable to afford new refrigerators, the poor, especially the Third World
poor, may have to do without. Food spoilage with the accompanying threat
of food poisoning is much more common in the tropical countries of the world
and could become more frequent. Banning CFCs could very well kill long before
a hole in the ozone ever could. That's a hefty price to pay for an inaccurate
weather prediction. 
|
People who do good things for the environment should benefit, and the people who harm the environment should pay the cost of the harm they cause. - Richard Stroup, Political Economy Research Center, Bozeman, Montana
The world's 150 governments have historically been enemies of the environment. - Richard Stroup, Political Economy Research Center, Bozeman, Montana
I am certain that most working climatologists believe that there has been no significant increase in temperature in the last 100 years. - William A. Neirenberg, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Even a 5 percent decrease in the ozone layer, as calculated by the most pessimistic scenarios, would increase ultraviolet exposure only as much as moving sixty miles south-the same distance as from Palm Beach to Miami. - S. Fred Singer, Professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia
...probably more people would die from food poisoning as a consequence of inadequate refrigeration than would die from depleting ozone. - Robert Watson, NASA scientist, referring to the effects of a CFC ban
Government, in its last analysis, is organized force. - President Woodrow Wilson ...once having joined the One-World Federated Government, no nation could secede or revolt... because with the Atom Bomb in its possession the Federal Government would blow that nation off the face of the earth. - Cord Meyer, Jr., first president of the United World Federalists ...the need of a growing solidarity with our fellows and a growing collective soul in humanity is not in dispute. But the loss of the self in the State is not the thing these high ideals mean, nor is it the way to their fulfillment. - Sri Aurobindo, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL THOUGHT We shall have world government whether or not you like it-by conquest or consent. - James Warburg, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1950. If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts and the world will govern itself. - Lao-tsu, TAO TE CHING |
The Best Teacher Notice that these nations did not have to be forced
to adopt the American way. The young United States simply lived its ideals.
At the time, our country was closer to practicing non-aggression than its
contemporaries were. Americans, for the most part, honored their neighbor's
choice. They did not, however, know the power of the other piece of the
puzzle: righting wrongs to make victims whole once again. However, even
partial non-aggression was so fruitful that other countries sought to imitate
our nation. Selfish others do not stand in our way. Indeed, non-aggression will infuse the earth precisely because each of us is a selfish other. Each of us seeks individual happiness with every thought, word, and deed. Just as in the computer games, we are learning that non-aggression (TIT FOR TAT) is a win-win strategy for everyone even the special interest groups. What joy to realize we needn't spend time and effort trying to control others at gunpoint to create a world of peace and plenty! What joy to realize that we live in a win-win world! We need not choose between our welfare and that of others; both are served by the practice of non-aggression. We need not choose between the individual and the common good; both benefit from non-aggression. We need not choose between the environment and our standard of living; both are balanced with non-aggression. We may have created a world of war and poverty, but because it is our creation, we have the power to change it. When we are steadfast in our refusal to use aggression to control our neighbors, the power brokers and special interest groups lose their control over us. No longer will we put the guns of government at the disposal of the powerful. When we refuse to be tempted by the serpent, we cannot be thrown from the garden! When we forsake aggression, we set the stage for cooperation and the innovative creation of wealth. Skilled workers cannot demand artificially high wages when ambitious, unskilled workers can negotiate training wages to learn their trades. Employers cannot exploit employees when the absence of licensing laws gives employees a chance to start a business of their own. Without monopoly by aggression, service providers must please customers or lose them to innovators who will put the customer first. By creating wealth non-aggressively, employers and employees learn that when they take care of each other, there is more profit to share. Service providers learn that they reap profit for themselves by taking care of their customers. As the Wealth Pie grows, so does the realization that by doing unto others, we do unto ourselves. With a society of greater wealth and awareness, the few who cannot create enough wealth for themselves can be amply provided for. When we do not force others to be charitable, giving comes about naturally. Some people in our society may still think that aggression serves them. They might manifest this belief by stealing, defrauding, raping, or killing their neighbors. The most compassionate act we can perform is to allow aggressors to reap as they sow, to experience the consequences of their actions, to right their wrongs. In this way, these individuals undo the harm they have done to themselves as well as to others. We have no need to punish such individuals, only to heal them and those they have harmed. If you have read this far, you probably share this vision, at least in part. Few people see things in exactly the same way. This is as it should be. As we work together, comparing interpretations and strategies, we will come closer to visualizing every aspect of our ultimate dream a world of universal peace and plenty. Clarity is the necessary first step to setting an example.
The bad news is that war and poverty are caused largely by our drive to
control our neighbors. The good news is that what we have done, we can undo.
We are in control. Once our vision is clear, we can change our behavior
to match it. We can honor our neighbor's choice by refusing to support laws
that threaten first-strike force or fraud against others. We can encourage
reforms that substitute restitution instead of punishment for aggressors. Instead of maintaining centralization of power in the hands of the few through the guns of government, we promote decentralization of power by putting it into the hands of every individual. Instead of services provided by regulated government monopolies, we encourage small businesses that compete in the marketplace ecosystem free from aggression to serve the customer best. We reject the idea of taking taxes at gunpoint, if necessary_from our neighbors for public programs. We elect private sector services to lower costs, improve quality, and do away with subsidies. We encourage private ownership of land and sea to stop special interest groups from exploiting the public domain. We reject imprisonment for those who hurt only themselves.
For those who aggress against others, we substitute restitution for
punishment. Through these reforms, we keep the marketplace ecosystem
free from aggression and protect ourselves from those who would trespass
against us. The Health Care Crisis The costs of medical care are skyrocketing because of the heavy regulation of the health care industry, including the licensing of physicians and pharmaceuticals. Should we consider using the aggression of taxation to subsidize national health insurance until deregulation? Once again, using the guns of government to solve the problems created by aggression only makes matters worse. As we've learned, subsidies encourage waste. In countries with subsidized national health insurance, people demand care for minor ailments they used to treat themselves. As a result, patients wait for critical care. In Newfoundland, a patient needing cardiac surgery waits an average of 43 weeks. (1) Affluent Canadians cross the border to our Cleveland Clinic; (2) the poor suffer. The waiting lists for all surgeries have doubled since 1967. (3) Canadians don't have better health care for less money, they just have less health care! This is not the solution we seek! In Britain, the availability of health care may be even more limited. British doctors see five times as many patients as their American counterpars. (4) Thirty-five percent of kidney dialysis centers refuse to treat patients over 55 years of age! (5) While the elderly are denied access to health care, the poor are neglected as well. Studies in Britain, Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand indicate that people with high social standing receive 2-6 times more health care than the less affluent. (6) National health programs even fail to deliver equal care! These findings should hardly surprise us. More aggression cannot solve problems caused by aggression; it can only make matters worse. The Veterans' Administration hospitals are a good example of what national health care will bring. The recent movie, Article 99, depicted the poor care a person can expect under such a system. Only non-aggression can turn the tide. When we deregulate medical care, as proposed in Chapters 5 (Harming Our Health) and 6 (Protecting Ourselves to Death), we will make health care costs affordable. Until then, we will have to pay the price for our aggression. The Faltering Economy As always, more aggression only makes the problems caused by aggression worse. If we raise taxes or increase deficits to help those harmed by aggression, we will only strange the economy further. Many more people will become unemployed. Government- sponsored "aid" is a cure worse than the disease. Non-aggression, however, works almost instantaneously to
bring prosperity to all. When we take away the restrictions that keep the
disadvantaged from working, poverty becomes optional. Government enforcement
agents who were creating no new wealth can turn their skills to creating
useful goods and services. As our national Wealth Pie grows, everyone's
standard of living increases. Non-aggression makes us all winners! The proponents of political non-aggression can be found in virtually every country of the world. In 1989, Leon Louw and Frances Kendall, two white South Africans, were nominated for the Nobel peace prize for their book on applying the principles of non-aggression to their troubled country. (4) In the United States, this book is entitled After Apartheid.(5) A best seller in South Africa, its ideals were endorsed by blacks and whites alike. Only time will tell if its wisdom will be adopted. Kendall and Louw found that the Swiss people are the best practitioners of the ideals of non-aggression. The Swiss national government posts are part-time positions. Most decisions are made at the canton (state) level. Swiss per capita income is the highest in the world,6 showing that non-aggression pays. How did the Swiss come to adopt a relatively non-aggressive constitution in an aggressive world? In the mid-1800s, they imitated our constitution and stuck with it! Louw and Kendall found that the ideals of non-aggression are easily shared in a group meeting at someone's home. The Advocates for Self-Government, (7) a group of people dedicated to spreading the practice of non-aggression, have similar programs here in the U.S. In San Francisco, the International Society for Individual Liberty (8) coordinates contacts among proponents of non-aggression worldwide. Along with Jan Sommerfelt Pettersen, the Society publishes the Index on Liberty (9) which lists groups active in the movement to promote non-aggression (also known as "libertarianism" or "classical liberalism"). Many countries boast a political party that advocates non-aggression. In the United States, the Libertarian Party (10) challenges our two-party system. Toni Nathan, the 1972 Libertarian vice-presidential nominee, became the first woman to receive a vote from the Electoral College. In 1980, Libertarian candidate Ed Clark was on the ballot in all 50 states. Alaska has had three state representatives elected under the Libertarian label; New Hampshire elected four in 1992. In 1987, Big Water, Utah, elected an all-Libertarian city council and mayor. A former Republican congressional representative, Ron Paul, became the Libertarian presidential nominee in 1988. By 1990, more than 100 Libertarians had been elected to local office. Presidential candidate, Andre Marrou, had served earlier in the Alaskan State House as a Libertarian, making him more qualified than independent presidential hopeful Ross Perot. Nevertheless, Mr. Marrou and his running mate, Nancy Lord, were excluded from the televised debates, while millionaire Perot was invited. Perot advocated acceleration of aggression-through-government. Did money and special interests determine whom American voters were exposed to? Inside the Republican Party, the Republican Liberty Caucus (15) is attempting to promote non-aggression within the establishment. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, (16) based in Washington, D.C., lobbies Congress to keep the marketplace ecosystem free from aggression. Throughout the country, a number of organizations publicize the benefits of non-aggression. The Reason Foundation (17) specializes in demonstrating how services that are now provided by government through aggression can be supplied better and less expensively in the marketplace ecosystem free from aggression. The Political Economy Research Center (18) pioneers the "New Resource Economics," the term given to the ecological application of non-aggression. The Journal of Libertarian Studies (19) provides a scholarly format for continued research. The National Center for Policy Analysis (20) issues extensive research papers on a wide variety of applications; the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy Research publishes books involving timely topics as well. (21) The Heartland Institute (22) in the midwest focuses on regional issues. In addition to research, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, (23) the Liberty Fund, (24) the Institute of Humane Studies, (25), the Foundation for Economic Education (26) and the Cato Institute (27) conduct conferences and seminars on non-aggression and human rights. Michigan's Mackinac Center (28) briefs high school debate teams on non-aggressive approaches to their annual topic. Another Michigan institution, the privately-funded Hillsdale College, (29) practices non-aggression by refusing to take tax subsidies. It sponsors conferences and publishes books on the marketplace ecosystem free from aggression. Hillsdale will send you its newsletter, Imprimis, free of charge at your request. The Institute for Justice takes on legal cases of individuals or groups victimized by aggression-through-government. (30) Several of these cases have involved fighting the licensing laws that attempt to shut down small businesses employing the disadvantaged. The Madison Group (31) networks with more than 60 organizations working toward a world of peace and plenty through non-aggression. A new group, the 21st Century Congress (32) networks with activists to integrate the spiritual aspects of community and individual sov-ereignty with the practice of non-aggression. Freedom Now (33) is attempting to form a critical mass of non-aggressors in Fort Collins, Colorado. A high percentage of non-aggressors in a small community creates more cooperative interactions. Other such communities with more deliberate integration are being considered by other groups as well. Non-aggression is an idea whose time has come. The above
contacts represent a cross-section of people dedicated to creating a win-win
world. In your efforts to bring about the healing of our world, you are
not alone. Never doubt that your contribution is just as important. Remember that the family and friends who talk with you about the win-win world possible through non-aggression will in turn talk to others, who will share the good news. Like a chain reaction, your message of hope will spread throughout our country and the world, bearing fruit in the most unexpected ways. If you do nothing more than extol the virtues of non-aggression to those around you, you will have done much toward manifesting it! Of course, you needn't stop there. The many groups cited
above would welcome your participation. Are there any that excite you? Would
you like to join a political campaign or speak on college campuses? Do you
perceive a need for other strategies that you could initiate on you own
or with others? Can you implement non-aggressive solutions in the midst
of aggression- through- government, much like Guy Polheus and Kimi Gray
did (Chapter 11: Springing the Poverty Trap)? All these things and
more are needed to help others recognize that non-aggression is in everybody's
best self-interest. We each have a part to play, a gift to the world that
will one day be reflected back to us as a better world. |
I wonder if we in the United States were to concentrate... on making ourselves the best possible society we can be, whether the nations of the world might once again, without any pressure except the influence of example, begin to emulate us. - M. Scott Peck, THE DIFFERENT DRUM
...the power system continues only as long as individuals try to get something for nothing. The day when a majority of individuals declares or acts as if it wants nothing from government, declares that it will look after its own welfare and interests, then on that day the power elites are doomed. - Anthony Sutton, author of THE BEST ENEMY MONEY CAN BUY
...a next major step toward peace is the creation of an image of a future world of peace, an image that is widely credible and is ever-more-widely held. - Richard Smoke and Willis Harman, PATHS TO PEACE
Canada spends less of its GDP on health care not because we have found a way to produce health care at lower unit cost but because we have found a way to limit the total supply of services made available... we ration the supply, denying treatment to some and making others wait. - Michael Walker, Executive Director of the Fraser Institute in Vancouver
Nationalized health is synonymous with delays, waiting lists, rationing, and high taxes. - Christopher Lyon, M.D., ex-Englishman
The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. - Internal Revenue Service.
Legalize freedom-vote Libertarian! - slogan of the Libertarian Party, U.S.A.
Never doubt that a small group of committed, thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead, American anthropologist |