Human Rights

[Danoff]

@Danoff and/or @Famine if anything forced means it's evil and everything you are obliged to do is ultimatly forced then how do you justify taxes and if you don't how do you propose to govern a society?

I'm still trying to see where this goes when I start at the fundament of the argument and where you guys will lead it. I wonder because where it leads is also important to know what your position is and wheter in the end I agree or disagree and if I still disagree what would be my counterarguments.

There are only a handful of forms of "taxation" which I know of that would not constitute force. One would be fee based. In the US a lot of people are hooked up to a municipal water supply run by the city. You pay for that with usage fees, not through taxes, and to the extent that you can have a water well on a property, it's voluntary. In theory this kind of fee-for-service model (which we also use at national parks and other places) is perfectly consistent with human rights. The US Patent Office operates entirely on a fee-for-service model, costing zero tax dollars (and sometimes contributing to the general fund).

The government also receives money from economic growth in a weird way, but to do so it has to control the money supply (or at least dominate the currency market). If you imagine a fixed pool of currency, but an expanding pool of goods and services to buy with that fixed pool (economic growth over time), deflation occurs. Deflation has some very negative effects, and the government can provide the service of expanding the pool of money to counteract deflation, thereby providing the service of a stable currency. The payment for that services is the money that is printed. The problem with this model is that it requires people to voluntarily use the expanding currency - which they might not want to do. But if they do (because it's stable), it's workable for obtaining tax dollars.

An endowment is another means of funding a government. Using an endowment the government can operate like a bank, charging interest.

Sales tax can be fee for service (and is always my preference over income tax). But you again need to be engaging in sales that get taxed voluntarily for some reason - such as obtaining a government-backed business license. But you can't just say "ok you can't have a business unless you have a license" or it's force again. People have to voluntarily want the business license, and there are good reasons to do so, including trademark protection.

Fee for service in the patent property world includes an application fee for protection of particular property and a maintenance fee for that protection. There's no reason why in theory that can't also extend to physical property. The government already provides the service of organizing and registering property titles to homes and land plots.

If we're considering the least amount of evil among the taxation policies that do violate human rights, my pick is just a straight national sales tax.

 

[Mr Tree]

There are only a handful of forms of "taxation" which I know of that would not constitute force. One would be fee based. In the US a lot of people are hooked up to a municipal water supply run by the city. You pay for that with usage fees, not through taxes, and to the extent that you can have a water well on a property, it's voluntary. In theory this kind of fee-for-service model (which we also use at national parks and other places) is perfectly consistent with human rights. The US Patent Office operates entirely on a fee-for-service model, costing zero tax dollars (and sometimes contributing to the general fund).

The government also receives money from economic growth in a weird way, but to do so it has to control the money supply (or at least dominate the currency market). If you imagine a fixed pool of currency, but an expanding pool of goods and services to buy with that fixed pool (economic growth over time), deflation occurs. Deflation has some very negative effects, and the government can provide the service of expanding the pool of money to counteract deflation, thereby providing the service of a stable currency. The payment for that services is the money that is printed. The problem with this model is that it requires people to voluntarily use the expanding currency - which they might not want to do. But if they do (because it's stable), it's workable for obtaining tax dollars.

An endowment is another means of funding a government. Using an endowment the government can operate like a bank, charging interest.

Sales tax can be fee for service (and is always my preference over income tax). But you again need to be engaging in sales that get taxed voluntarily for some reason - such as obtaining a government-backed business license. But you can't just say "ok you can't have a business unless you have a license" or it's force again. People have to voluntarily want the business license, and there are good reasons to do so, including trademark protection.

Fee for service in the patent property world includes an application fee for protection of particular property and a maintenance fee for that protection. There's no reason why in theory that can't also extend to physical property. The government already provides the service of organizing and registering property titles to homes and land plots.

If we're considering the least amount of evil among the taxation policies that do violate human rights, my pick is just a straight national sales tax.

On a vere specific case how to fund the military or public roads?
I can imagine people not voluntarily paying for roads or the military.

 

[Danoff]

On a vere specific case how to fund the military or public roads?
I can imagine people not voluntarily paying for roads or the military.

Roads are easy, tolls. Gas tax is less preferable but more direct than income tax.

Military is hard. Maybe through a fee at the voting booth. I'm not pretending that the answers are all easy here.

 

[Mr Tree]

Roads are easy, tolls. Gas tax is less preferable but more direct than income tax.

Military is hard. Maybe through a fee at the voting booth. I'm not pretending that the answers are all easy here.

I'm not trying to imply they are.

I'm currently trying to fully understand your position. As it somehow feels wrong to me but then again the facts don't care about my feelings. So I'm trying to understand you correctly as to give your opinion a real consideration or to find out where we disagree and why I wouldn't be 'wrong'.

Which is a lot of text to say I'm reevaluating my beliefs.

I'm going to think about what you wrote and get back to this.

One thing I want to ask before that is, I'm correct you value human right above all (as do most of us I think, including me), you claim human rights to be objective and think laws should be based on these human rights or at least check they don't violate these rights?
And if I'm correct on that my 'final' question would be what is your basis for human rights as in what makes a right a right, what makes it objective?

 

[Danoff]

One thing I want to ask before that is, I'm correct you value human right above all (as do most of us I think, including me), you claim human rights to be objective and think laws should be based on these human rights or at least check they don't violate these rights?

Yup.

And if I'm correct on that my 'final' question would be what is your basis for human rights as in what makes a right a right, what makes it objective?

Well it's fairly well documented in this thread. But the short version is that initiation of force against someone requires imposing a subjective value system on them which cannot be evaluated to be superior to whatever value system caused them to resist the force.

For example, suppose your rule of law is "might makes right". If you can get away with it, that's what you should do. This system values the ability to produce force over the inability to produce force. You could just have easily have said "smart makes right" or "the tallest person is right" or the prettiest, etc. etc. No one person's reason for forcing the people around them is more valid than anyone else's reason for not wanting to be forced.

You might say "but the greater good", but of course who defines that? It's subjective again. Even the notion that human beings should survive is subjective. So what you're left with is that the only objective, logical conclusion is that people should not initiate force against others to maintain objectivity.

When someone demonstrates a willingness to use force against others (say, a criminal) they're saying that their subjective reasons for doing so are good enough. And then you can explain to them that since they clearly demonstrated that that's good enough for them, we can also use subjective reasons to force them into jail. This introduces the necessary requirement of reciprocity of human rights.

 

[polysmut]

Property rights are a natural consequence of human rights.

I'm confident you have a solid explanation for this because I know it's something that you think about but I can't guess what that explanation is. Can you explain it for me please?

 

[Danoff]

I'm confident you have a solid explanation for this because I know it's something that you think about but I can't guess what that explanation is. Can you explain it for me please?

Think of property as an embodiment of labor. A few pages back we were talking about a clay pot made from a mixture of unowned earth and labor. The reason you can own the pot is the labor, not the earth, and the reason you can own the earth is that it can't be untangled from the labor without rendering the labor fruitless, pointless, valueless, unusable... destroyed.

Why do you own your labor? Because if someone else owns your labor, you are a slave - forced to work for other than your own determination. That's the initiation of force against an innocent person. It doesn't matter whether your labor is being commanded at the end of a whip, or stolen after you have completed producing something. In either case you are a slave.

 

[polysmut]

Think of property as an embodiment of labor. A few pages back we were talking about a clay pot made from a mixture of unowned earth and labor. The reason you can own the pot is the labor, not the earth, and the reason you can own the earth is that it can't be untangled from the labor without rendering the labor fruitless, pointless, valueless, unusable... destroyed.

Why do you own your labor? Because if someone else owns your labor, you are a slave - forced to work for other than your own determination. That's the initiation of force against an innocent person. It doesn't matter whether your labor is being commanded at the end of a whip, or stolen after you have completed producing something. In either case you are a slave.

Thanks for the explanation, I haven't read it with much concentration yet but I will start here next time I log on.

 

[Imari]

On a vere specific case how to fund the military or public roads?
I can imagine people not voluntarily paying for roads or the military.

Road tolls.
Militia.

 

[Mr Tree]

Road tolls.
Militia.

What do 'you' mean by a militia? How does that work in a brief explanation if posible or a link to solething.
I'm asking because I'm genuinly ignorant on that subject.

 

[Imari]

What do 'you' mean by a militia? How does that work in a brief explanation if posible or a link to solething.
I'm asking because I'm genuinly ignorant on that subject.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/militia?s=t

Come on, man. It's not rocket science.

 

[Mr Tree]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/militia?s=t

Come on, man. It's not rocket science.

No need for the condescending attitude. The link you gave me is not really helping. How do you pay for weapons and jet fighters,... without having the public pay for it within a militiasystem.

I'm honnestly trying to underdtand @Danoff and your perspective. I'm honnestly trying to learn. I haven't made any counterarguments because my intention currently is not to counter those ideas but try and learn from them. Having this 'it's not rocketscience' as a reply doesn't help when the person said they're genuinly ignorant of specific case.

I'm still very willing to keep learning about your position I just wanted to point out that I didn't appreciate it when you want to act as if I'm to stupid because I ask questions however simple they may be.



Edit: made the last paragraph readable.

Edit: and yes I'm very ignorant considering the army or similar structures like militia's I never really understood mans need to get himself hostage in certain situations. We need a military because other people have one (or random militia's would pop up is an other viable reason). But we obly need a force because othe humans would use force.

The economic race to the bottom is the same one. In order to have more jobs a country drops taxes to lure them in, after which an other country cuts them of,... but in reality it's because of the undercutting which makes we keep ourself hostage. (I know this is a simplified view on the economic race to the bottom) but I'm moving away from the topic.

 

[mustafur]

I dont get the property rights argument, you can easily seperate labour from property.

What if you were to labour on claimed land that had no labour to claim. What if you buy property with money you didn't labour for.

Let's be real here, you have no property unless you have the means to defend said property through the state or yourself.

If you have no means to defend, your essentially occupying.

 

[Danoff]

I dont get the property rights argument, you can easily seperate labour from property.

What if you were to labour on claimed land that had no labour to claim.

I don't understand the question.

What if you buy property with money you didn't labour for.

Then the property was not unowned.

Let's be real here, you have no property unless you have the means to defend said property through the state or yourself.

The force you might use to defend your rights does not define them. If you do not have the means to defend your rights, your rights might be violated by someone who would take advantage of that fact, but you still have them.

 

[mustafur]

Then your rights have literally no meaning making them worthless.

It's basically an opinion.

 

[Danoff]

Then your rights have literally no meaning making them worthless.

It's basically an opinion.

You mean because they can be violated? No, they would be meaningless if they couldn't be violated.

An example of something which cannot be violated would be, for example, your right to be acted upon by gravity. Or to exert gravitational force commensurate with your mass. Or your right to travel slower than the speed of light... to move forward through time. These are things that the physical laws of the universe guarantee will not be violated.

That's meaningless.

 

[mustafur]

So everything that can be violated is a right then?

Because if not, then what is even the definition your coming up with here?

Surely your idea of what a right is comes under ability.

Ability to do, rather then Right to do.

 

[Rallywagon]

I'm sure those are rights Danoff. Being pressed down by gravity is not a right. It's a force of nature. Further, wouldn't owning property be an entitlement, not a right? Rights, as I see them, have more to do with social and ethical allowances than ownership. Rights may entitle you to own the land. Rights may entitle you to labor on whatever you want. Being able to violate doesn't make anything a right. Social norms, ethics, etc. make a right. They can be violated, but that violation doesn't make anything a right.

 

[Danoff]

So everything that can be violated is a right then?

Because if not, then what is even the definition your coming up with here?

Surely your idea of what a right is comes under ability.

Ability to do, rather then Right to do.

I'm sure those are rights Danoff. Being pressed down by gravity is not a right. It's a force of nature. Further, wouldn't owning property be an entitlement, not a right? Rights, as I see them, have more to do with social and ethical allowances than ownership. Rights may entitle you to own the land. Rights may entitle you to labor on whatever you want. Being able to violate doesn't make anything a right. Social norms, ethics, etc. make a right. They can be violated, but that violation doesn't make anything a right.

You both seem to have the same misunderstanding, which is probably my fault.

No, not everything that can be violated is a right. My point was that things which cannot be violated (such as the speed of light, being acted upon by gravity, and moving forward through time) would be meaningless if they were rights. Why would you waste time making laws to prevent that which cannot happen? Rights are not guarantees of the behavior of those around you. If they were, there would be no need to talk about them because those around you could not do otherwise without violating the laws of nature.

In other words, the fact that rights can be violated is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for them to have meaning.

Human rights are a recognition of types of human behavior. That is all. They're not a force of nature, they're not a hand coming from the sky to prevent people from acting in a certain way. The recognition is simply the difference between those who would force the people around them based on subjectivity, and those who would not. That's it! Just categorizing two groups based on their actions. What societies do with those categories is up to them, and what they do with it might put them in one or the other group. For example, here are two scenarios:

A society that adheres to human rights might say "someone who is willing to use force against innocent people can be forced into jail". A society that doesn't adhere to human rights might say "someone who is willing to use force against innocent people should be encouraged". These are both options for behavior, and we can find examples of countries choosing both options through history. Those options come with logical consequences, which are that one of those societies, consistent with human rights, has an internal logical consistency that maintains objectivity. The other society doesn't, and to that extent, is a subjective system based on the whims of those with power.

From the perspective of objectivity, one of those societies might be considered legitimate while the other is not.

 

[mustafur]

So it's two different meanings of the same subject using the same word?

 

[Danoff]

So it's two different meanings of the same subject using the same word?

What subject, word, and meaning are you talking about?

 

[Danoff]

Here's an interesting moral/ethical dilemma for your consideration which comes directly out of a (disappointing) book I just read (the book was titled "Justice").

Suppose you're at a gas station and your car breaks down. A mobile repair van eventually drives up, and a mechanic hops out to help you. He says, "I charge $25/hr. If I fix your car in 5 minutes, you owe me $25. If I spend an hour and can't fix your car, you still owe me $25". You ask a follow up question about how easy it is to fix, and he starts poking around without answering. Shortly after he says "well I haven't found the problem yet, but you still have 50 minutes". You say "wait a minute, I haven't agreed to hire you". He says "are you telling me that if I fixed your car right now you wouldn't pay me?"

How do you respond? The point of this hypothetical is to question whether you can be obliged without express consent.

 

[PocketZeven]

Here's an interesting moral/ethical dilemma for your consideration which comes directly out of a (disappointing) book I just read (the book was titled "Justice").

Suppose you're at a gas station and your car breaks down. A mobile repair van eventually drives up, and a mechanic hops out to help you. He says, "I charge $25/hr. If I fix your car in 5 minutes, you owe me $25. If I spend an hour and can't fix your car, you still owe me $25". You ask a follow up question about how easy it is to fix, and he starts poking around without answering. Shortly after he says "well I haven't found the problem yet, but you still have 50 minutes". You say "wait a minute, I haven't agreed to hire you". He says "are you telling me that if I fixed your car right now you wouldn't pay me?"

How do you respond? The point of this hypothetical is to question whether you can be obliged without express consent.

The way I do business I always ask consent from the people to avoid any discussion in the future. In above case the situation would have been much clearer if the mechanic just asked 25$ up front.

However in my country you get billed travel costs, before the mechanic even has come to your aid. Of which may or may not include 15 minutes of reparation time. Even if he fixes it within 1 minute, you are billed the travelcosts. These costs vary between €40-€100. So $ 25 is cheap as hell.

I would respond by telling I will pay him 10 dollars now and 15 when he is finished/ after an hour. And remember for me it is not uncommon to be already billed costs when the mechanic arrives.

 

[zzz_pt]

Here's an interesting moral/ethical dilemma for your consideration which comes directly out of a (disappointing) book I just read (the book was titled "Justice").

Suppose you're at a gas station and your car breaks down. A mobile repair van eventually drives up, and a mechanic hops out to help you. He says, "I charge $25/hr. If I fix your car in 5 minutes, you owe me $25. If I spend an hour and can't fix your car, you still owe me $25". You ask a follow up question about how easy it is to fix, and he starts poking around without answering. Shortly after he says "well I haven't found the problem yet, but you still have 50 minutes". You say "wait a minute, I haven't agreed to hire you". He says "are you telling me that if I fixed your car right now you wouldn't pay me?"

How do you respond? The point of this hypothetical is to question whether you can be obliged without express consent.

The moral dilemma for me when I read this was:

Is it moral for the mechanic to charge $25 at all, if the person stranded in the middle of nowhere has no other option and can be left to die if doesn't express consent (for the mechanic to check the car) or doesn't have the money to pay the $25?

If it's not a car, but it's a broken leg and the mechanic is a taxi driver instead of a mechanic. Would the consent (of the taxi driver picking the injured man up to put him inside the taxi) be the major issue, or the taxi driver charging $25 for taking him to a hospital?

I think the whole thing depends on the availability of a second option or not. If that mechanic is the only person in a 100 mile radius who can "save" this man, and nothing else exists (motel, restaurants, gas stations), the owner of the broken car is not more morally obliged without expressed consent to pay the $25 than the mechanic is morally obliged to not charge the $25.

Edit: In other words, the mechanic, IMO, has a higher moral responsability at that moment to not charge the money, regardless of the non-expressed consent given by the stranded person to check the car.

Don't know if I was clear or not. ^^

 

[PocketZeven]

The moral dilemma for me when I read this was:

Is it moral for the mechanic to charge $25 at all, if the person stranded in the middle of nowhere has no other option and can be left to die if doesn't express consent (for the mechanic to check the car) or doesn't have the money to pay the $25?

If it's not a car, but it's a broken leg and the mechanic is a taxi driver instead of a mechanic. Would the consent (of the taxi driver picking the injured man up to put him inside the taxi) be the major issue, or the taxi driver charging $25 for taking him to a hospital?

I think the whole thing depends on the availability of a second option or not. If that mechanic is the only person in a 100 mile radius who can "save" this man, and nothing else exists (motel, restaurants, gas stations), the owner of the broken car is not more morally obliged without expressed consent to pay the $25 than the mechanic is morally obliged to not charge the $25.

Don't know if I was clear or not. ^^

He was already at a gasstation. So I assume it wasnt a life or death situation. The dilemma is rather it wouldnt matter if he/she would consent in this case, he/she would have most likely to pay $ 25,- anyways. But asking consent would have been a courtesy.

 

[Danoff]

The way I do business I always ask consent from the people to avoid any discussion in the future. In above case the situation would have been much clearer if the mechanic just asked 25$ up front.

However in my country you get billed travel costs, before the mechanic even has come to your aid. Of which may or may not include 15 minutes of reparation time. Even if he fixes it within 1 minute, you are billed the travelcosts. These costs vary between €40-€100. So $ 25 is cheap as hell.

I would respond by telling I will pay him 10 dollars now and 15 when he is finished/ after an hour. And remember for me it is not uncommon to be already billed costs when the mechanic arrives.

The moral dilemma for me when I read this was:

Is it moral for the mechanic to charge $25 at all, if the person stranded in the middle of nowhere has no other option and can be left to die if doesn't express consent (for the mechanic to check the car) or doesn't have the money to pay the $25?

If it's not a car, but it's a broken leg and the mechanic is a taxi driver instead of a mechanic. Would the consent (of the taxi driver picking the injured man up to put him inside the taxi) be the major issue, or the taxi driver charging $25 for taking him to a hospital?

I think the whole thing depends on the availability of a second option or not. If that mechanic is the only person in a 100 mile radius who can "save" this man, and nothing else exists (motel, restaurants, gas stations), the owner of the broken car is not more morally obliged without expressed consent to pay the $25 than the mechanic is morally obliged to not charge the $25.

Edit: In other words, the mechanic, IMO, has a higher moral responsability at that moment to not charge the money, regardless of the non-expressed consent given by the stranded person to check the car.

Don't know if I was clear or not. ^^

The question is not about whether it's a reasonable fee, and let's assume nobody is in danger of death.

The question is what your response to the mechanic's question is. If he had fixed your car in the first 10 minutes, would you have paid him? Would you have felt you were obligated to pay him, morally. Was he entitled to your money if he had fixed the car? And how is that different if he doesn't find the problem?

 

[zzz_pt]

He was already at a gasstation. So I assume it wasnt a life or death situation. The dilemma is rather it wouldnt matter if he/she would consent in this case, he/she would have most likely to pay $ 25,- anyways. But asking consent would have been a courtesy.

Well, that's my point. It doesn't mention if the gas station is open or closed. Also, if the gas station is a city downtown or reletevly close, you can try second options by walking around. If it isn't and you're alone in the middle of nowhere, you might not have a second option. There are plenty of gas stations that are closed during part of day/night.

The question is not about whether it's a reasonable fee, and let's assume nobody is in danger of death.

The question is what your response to the mechanic's question is. If he had fixed your car in the first 10 minutes, would you have paid him? Would you have felt you were obligated to pay him, morally. Was he entitled to your money if he had fixed the car? And how is that different if he doesn't find the problem?

I think you would have no other chance than to pay if he finds the problem. But it would be kind of coersion, since the owner never said "Ok, you can look up and check what's the problem and I'll pay you even if you can't fix it."

But the mechanic said "you owe me $25 even if I can't fix it" and started to look up the car without ansering a reasonable question from the owner "how easy it is to fix?". The mechanic shoud at least reply to that question before starting to look up the car.

But then again, how would the mechanic know how easy it is to fix the car without looking it up? On the other hand, what if the mechanic is a really bad one and just spends an hour looking at the engine, aware of the fact he has no idea what's the issue, so he can get $25?

Since the whole payment thing is kinda circular, the person with more knowledge (about mechanics) and power (helping instead of being in need of help) in the situation should be more morally accountable. That's why I made my first post.

These dilemmas are fun to think about. But it's hard to find a clear solution.

 

[PocketZeven]

The question is not about whether it's a reasonable fee, and let's assume nobody is in danger of death.

The question is what your response to the mechanic's question is. If he had fixed your car in the first 10 minutes, would you have paid him? Would you have felt you were obligated to pay him, morally. Was he entitled to your money if he had fixed the car? And how is that different if he doesn't find the problem?

He was honest up front about the costs. He charges for his time. So if he fixed it I would have paid. Your assumption though was is it was morally correct of the mechanic to let the hour unknowingly start the hour without consent. In that sense the mechanic had a choice to ask for consent and/or tell the person that he starts charging when he was asked to look at the problem. He chose not to, but in my view he is still entitled nonetheless to the money, because he clearly stated his fee.

The dilemma would have been more interesting if he told the person he is owed at least $ 25 after he started looking at the car.

edit: updated post.

 

[Danoff]

Well, that's my point. It doesn't mention if the gas station is open or closed. Also, if the gas station is a city downtown or reletevly close, you can try second options by walking around. If it isn't and you're alone in the middle of nowhere, you might not have a second option. There are plenty of gas stations that are closed during part of day/night.



I think you would have no other chance than to pay if he finds the problem. But it would be kind of coersion, since the owner never said "Ok, you can look up and check what's the problem and I'll pay you even if you can't fix it."

But the mechanic said "you owe me $25 even if I can't fix it" and started to look up the car without ansering a reasonable question from the owner "how easy it is to fix?". The mechanic shoud at least reply to that question before starting to look up the car.

But then again, how would the mechanic know how easy it is to fix the car without looking it up? On the other hand, what if the mechanic is a really bad one and just spends an hour looking at the engine, aware of the fact he has no idea what's the issue, so he can get $25?

Since the whole payment thing is kinda circular, the person with more knowledge (about mechanics) and power (helping instead of being in need of help) in the situation should be more morally accountable. That's why I made my first post.

These dilemmas are fun to think about. But it's hard to find a clear solution.

He was honest up front about the costs. He charges for his time. So if he fixed it I would have paid. Your assumption though was is it was morally correct of the mechanic to let the hour unknowingly start the hour without consent. In that sense the mechanic had a choice to ask for consent and/or tell the person that he starts charging when he was asked to look at the problem. He chose not to, but in my view he is still entitled nonetheless to the money, because he clearly stated his fee.

The dilemma would have been more interesting if he told the person he is owed at least $ 25 after he started looking at the car.

edit: updated post.

Thanks for your responses. Before I dive in with my own analysis of the dilemma, I think I can cause some more hard thinking about this problem by saying that the author of the book felt that the mechanic was entitled to $25 if he had fixed the car, and was not entitled to it if he did not.

 

[PocketZeven]

Thanks for your responses. Before I dive in with my own analysis of the dilemma, I think I can cause some more hard thinking about this problem by saying that the author of the book felt that the mechanic was entitled to $25 if he had fixed the car, and was not entitled to it if he did not.

That would have been ethically wrong, since the mechanic stated his fee up front. He said clearly he charges 25 an hour regardles if he manages to fix it. If he stated he charges 25 usd to fix it, one could make a case for the author that he isnt entitled to payment. He could have assumed it was a no cure, no pay offer.