1) We oppose all federal taxation.

  1. Taxation redirects resources from productive to mostly non-productive uses.

  2. Taxation distorts the structure of production away from the structure favored by the consumers.

  3. Certain forms of taxation, such as the taxation of inheritances, are particularly destructive.

  4. In the final analysis, taxation is extortion and robbery, what Bastiat called “legal plunder.” For example, the “ability to pay” principle in progressive taxation represents the law of the highwayman who robs his victims as much as they are “able to pay.” The sales tax is essentially payment for the permission to live, since none of us can survive without exchanging goods and services. And so on.

  5. Taxation transfers sovereignty from the individual to the state. The state arrogates to itself the right to tax everything, and exactly how much is taxed is left to expediency and prudence of the robber of how much he can get away with stealing (fans of the Laffer curve can weigh in at this point). Where before property was inviolable and property rights sacred, now it is up to the government to decide how much should be left in the hands of the citizen. States, localities, businesses, and individuals are reduced from proud independence to seeking the state’s patronage, in other words, its loot.

  6. Taxation is a form of indentured servitude. It is possible to divide a year (or a month, etc.) into the (very long nowadays) time period during which a person works for the government as a serf, without compensation, and the time during which he works for himself. We find this state of affairs to be utterly unworthy of free individuals.

  7. Since taxes cannot be lowered or eliminated without a reduction or elimination of government spending, we support the latter both as a holy end in itself and as the necessary means to or condition of the former.

2) We oppose all taxation in the state of Ohio.

  1. For the same reasons.

3) We support the gold standard, abolition of legal tender laws, legalization of privately minted money, and we oppose central banking and reject the ideology of inflationism and easy money that sustains the present system.

  1. See Our Money Madness.

  2. As Mises writes:

    Inflationism, however, is not an isolated phenomenon. It is only one piece in the total framework of politico-economic and socio-philosophical ideas of our time.

    Just as the sound money policy of gold standard advocates went hand in hand with liberalism, free trade, capitalism and peace, so is inflationism part and parcel of imperialism, militarism, protectionism, statism and socialism.

4) We support retiring the federal debt by means of selling the assets held by the federal government. (E.g., in 2005 interest on the debt consumed $178 billion.)

  1. The federal government owns nearly 650 million acres of land — almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States.

  2. Also the Post Office (to be privatized, see below) and other government-run enterprises are to be sold off.

5) We support a policy of zero trade barriers, regardless of the policies of the nations with which we are trading.

Despite this, we oppose any and all wars designed to get the opposing country to lower its trade barriers.

  1. Any trade makes both parties better off, so far as they see it at the moment of the exchange. To put hurdles in the way of commerce is to make people less happy than they would be otherwise.

  2. There can be no justification for tariffs except to raise revenue for the government. Protection of industries is not a justification.

  3. Free trade eliminates most economic reasons for war.

  4. If free trade is good between the states composing the United States, it is equally good between all countries.

  5. Free trade does not require official trade agreements, treaties, negotiations between states, or anything of that nature. To further the cause of free trade and to make the American consumers richer, all that is needed is unilateral elimination of all US government-erected obstacles to trade.

  6. Free trade is a type of technology: the most efficient way for American farmers to get Japanese cars is to grow wheat, and the most efficient way for Japanese car-makers to get wheat is to make cars. And similarly for millions of other goods and services. All trade barriers lower the efficiency of this technology, making everyone poorer.

  7. Example: Suppose that as a result of freer trade some industry will relocate oversees. It seems that jobs will be lost in the US. Not so: due to greater efficiency of production, imports will cost less, thereby leaving more money in the hand of the consumers. This will increase demand for domestic goods which will cause other domestic industries to grow, and new jobs will be created. It need not be true that more people will be employed, but the new jobs will be better for the employees in terms of real wages as a result of the more efficient division of labor and lower prices.

6) We oppose the coercive inter-generational wealth transfers, viz., Social Security.

We oppose any mandatory savings scheme, such as have been proposed to “save” Social Security.

We support permitting any person to opt out of paying FICA taxes at the cost of not receiving the benefits upon retirement and saving, investing, or consuming their own money as they see fit.

  1. Social Security is not insurance nor is it involuntary saving but rather a pay-as-you-go scheme in which at any given time the young are compelled to support the old. There is no such thing as the SS “trust fund.”

  2. SS has put enmity between generations, as young people are forced to give money to the old with whom they have no relations. Family and personal responsibilities have been replaced with government welfare, to the detriment of the former.

  3. Investing SS money into the stock market is an awful idea, as the government is a very poor entrepreneur. And what will happen if the stocks the government chooses will go down? Further, corruption will flourish as donations to politicians will poor in to influence stock choices. This plan will also essentially nationalize most major corporations.

  4. The idea of private savings accounts is equally absurd. First, why should people be forced by the state to save for their retirement? Is the government a better money manager than private individuals? Of course not. And what if a citizen prefers to spend his income or wealth? Who is the state to tell him that he is doing something wrong? Moreover, the immense variety of investment options with hundreds of banks, investment firms, mutual funds, etc. makes government concerns look quaint. Finally, the transition costs to private accounts will be enormous (in fact, new taxes will be created alongside the old FICA taxes) and will make the plan impossible to implement.

7) We support unhampered free market in health care.

  1. The present health care system is an unstable and irrational cross between free market and government interventionist approaches. It is a general rule that even a single intervention can not only distort the workings of the market to such an extent as to make it very inefficient, but also generate a case for further interventions. In other words, there is a dynamics in the system such that the initial intervention produces results contrary to the common good and to the publicly stated aims of its very supporters; people clamor for something to be done; and the result is either a repeal of the intervention and a return to the unhampered market or a passage of further interventionist legislation. All the alleged peculiarities of health care that are claimed to support interventionism are, in fact, the results of other, unmentioned interventionist measures. If only the free market existed in its full actuality, the general welfare would be served far more efficiently than it is now under a “third way” or, for that matter, under a fully socialist system of health care provision.

  2. As Ron Paul points out:

    For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time.

    America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today.

    Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

  3. The influence of the American Medical Association on policy is utterly pernicious and harms patients. Supply is artificially restricted and costs of getting treatments are increased. Practitioners of alternative medicine are hounded. Therefore, all government regulations on the practice or teaching of medicine must end and be replaced by privately provided quality control. Indeed, licensure is the doctors’ attempt to cartelize the industry in order to receive above-market wages.

  4. Because of the high prices of the licensed doctors, many people are priced out of the market. They consequently elect politicians who promise to subsidize health care, that is, to steal from Peter to pay for Paul. This, in turn, causes overconsumption. Costs skyrocket. People begin to demand that health care be rationed. The government responds again by trying to contain the costs. We end up with a market hobbled in a variety of creative yet absurd ways and with society spending much more on health care than is optimal. In short, consumers can make discriminating medical care choices, just as they make discriminating choices in every other market. What we suggest, again, is therefore not an abolition of quality controls for doctors but their privatization. The market solutions are far superior to government ones.

    Indeed, one of the freest industries in the US is the computer industry, and many computer companies, such as Microsoft, Sun, and Cisco offer numerous private certifications that individuals can acquire to enhance their reputation and therefore chances of being hired and their salary. We need the same kind of system in health care.

  5. As Lew Rockwell explains:

    The risk of getting sick combines random and nonrandom variables. Catastrophic illnesses can be randomly distributed and thus insured against. But routine maintenance follows many predictable lines that must be reflected in premiums.

    The most cost-effective way to pay for medical care is the same way car maintenance is paid for: a fee for service. In a free market, this would be the dominant way medical care is funded.

    Prices would be aboveboard and competitive, and there would be a range of quality available for everyone. There would be no moral hazard. This was largely the system before the Blues, of course.

    What is called private insurance in the US is actually pre-paid consumption. Instead of insuring catastrophic illnesses, people are insured even for simple visits to the doctor. This is absurd. Routine health care is a commodity like any other; it should be paid for in cash.

  6. Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes:

    The first interventionist act brought about a big mess — insurance premiums always go up because insurers are no longer allowed to discriminate correctly and are even forced to include uninsurable risks. So now the problem arises of more and more people dropping out. For those who remain insured, premiums have to be raised to adjust for the fact that so many are dropping out.

    The next step, which we in the United States are on the verge of taking, is to make health insurance compulsory. No More Dropping Out! If this step is taken — compulsory health insurance, with all the other mandates remaining in place — then of course premiums will skyrocket even more than they have in the past.

    What then will be the next step? This too can easily be predicted: there must be cost controls imposed. There will be a rebellion on the part of the public, who will say, “The price is out of control! The government has to do something!” But all the government can do is engage in price controls. What happens with price controls? We get tremendous shortages of certain services, as in places like Canada where you can’t get certain treatments and there are one- or two-year waits for others.

    All healthcare provision will become increasingly politicized: the government will design lists of good diseases for which you do get treatment (such as AIDS, I’m sure) and bad diseases, such as those you get from smoking too much. Those with the bad diseases the government will let die.

    Where does all this lead then? Intervention in the insurance market creates an ever-increasing loss of individual responsibility, creates shortsightedness, and creates hazardous risks.

  7. The provision of health insurance by employers is arbitrary and senseless. Should socks and cereals and vacuum cleaners, too, be included in the “benefits” package when one is hired for a job?

8) We support elimination of Medicare and Medicaid.

  1. For the same reasons.

9) We support complete privatization of schooling.

At the same time we oppose any voucher scheme to subsidize private schooling.

We support repeal of all compulsory schooling laws.

  1. The wretched inefficiency of government schools is legendary, and so is their propensity for indulging in worthless propaganda and for corrupting the morals of the young.

  2. It is impossible to foretell the shape that a completely privatized education industry will take, but it may well be very different from what is presently the status quo. The discovery of the best system of education must be left to entrepreneurs and capital owners servicing the consumers: the children and their parents.

  3. A fully-functioning free market in schooling will be efficient and affordable to all. There will be a variety of schools which will teach using different methods; thus, there will be plenty of choice and constant innovation. Poor businessmen will fail, while those who satisfy their customers will prosper, just as it is supposed to be.

  4. Subsidies to private schools will eventually cause them to be controlled by the state. Given the current politically correct climate of opinion, decent schools will be unable to protect themselves by choosing their own students, which will essentially ensure their destruction.

  5. Compulsory schooling violates the liberty of parents and children. It also prevents students from deciding for themselves whether to proceed with their studies or, for example, to get a job. Indeed, the best education is very often obtained through job experience.

10) We oppose government subsidies of grants and loans to university students.

  1. These subsidies cause vast over-consumption of university services. Probably the majority of current students are not supposed to be enrolled. They are wasting their most productive years studying things which, again, can be of use only to future PhDs and professors.

  2. As Mises writes:

    In order to succeed in business a man does not need a degree from a school of business administration. These schools train the subalterns for routine jobs. They certainly do not train entrepreneurs.

    An entrepreneur cannot be trained. A man becomes an entrepreneur in seizing an opportunity and filling the gap. No special education is required for such a display of keen judgment, foresight, and energy.

    The most successful businessmen were often uneducated when measured by the scholastic standards of the teaching profession. But they were equal to their social function of adjusting production to the most urgent demand. Because of these merits the consumers chose them for business leadership.

11) We oppose all coercive price controls, including the minimum wage.

  1. Minimum wage laws create what is known as institutional unemployment among low-wage workers by lopping off a range of bargains. They constitute a form of price control and establish a price ceiling which causes a surplus of labor and the market to fail to clear.

  2. Not only must many mostly unskilled workers endure involuntary unemployment, but the businesses that would have hired them absent the minimum wage laws, fail to benefit from their work, as well, which lowers both the rate of economic growth and real wages.

  3. A first job, even at a low wage, is the beginning of one’s career not its end. No young person is supposed to support a wife and three children by working at a fast-food store. But he is supposed to master the basic skills of employment, such as conscientiousness, precision such that not a single customer is wronged, punctuality, cheerful service, going beyond the call of duty. The money earned will, with the family’s help, be used to buy more specific training. These combine to make the worker upwardly mobile. Minimum wage takes away this crucial stepping-stone to career advancement.

  4. MW laws violate the human right to voluntarily contract for a job by an employer and an applicant at whatever price the market will bear.

  5. MW laws are often made at the behest of unions (which are little more than vehicles for organized anti-consumer thuggery) who want to secure above-market wages at the expense of the people who must remain unemployed. And, surely, receiving no wages is much worse than for union members to receive merely slightly lower wages.

  6. The absurdity of minimum wage legislation becomes evident as soon as we ask why the minimum wage is not raised to, say, $100/hour. If that is crazy, why isn’t any other clearly arbitrary amount of minimum wage crazy, as well?

12) We oppose all regulation of business by the federal government, including but not limited to:

  1. Antitrust laws whose main effect is punishment of successful and protection of unsuccessful companies. It is no wonder that the vast majority of antitrust suits are filed not by the Justice Department but by the competitors of the accused firm.

  2. Indiscriminate use of the Commerce Clause: “The Congress shall have Power To… regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (US Constitution, I, 8). The meaning of “regulate” here is “to make regular,” “promote,” by enforcing free trade between the states. It is not a license to interfere with voluntary business transactions.

  3. The treatment of private business property as a “commercial accommodation” as opposed to personal property for which the owner has a full complement of rights. From anti-discrimination laws to the Americans with Disabilities Act, government invasions cripple the businesses’ service to the consumers and impoverish society.

  4. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

  5. The activities of the FDA, the EPA, the FCC, and the rest of the federal alphabet soup. The damage done by them is varied and plentiful.

13) We oppose all coercive “welfare” wealth transfers to the poor.

  1. As Mises writes:

    We may fully endorse the religious and ethical precepts that declare it to be man’s duty to assist his unlucky brethren whom nature has doomed.

    But the recognition of this duty does not answer the question concerning what methods should be resorted to for its performance. It does not enjoin the choice of methods which would endanger society and curtail the productivity of human effort.

    Neither the able-bodied nor the incapacitated would derive any benefit from a drop in the quantity of goods available.

    The problems involved are not of a praxeological character, and economics is not called upon to provide the best possible solution for them. They concern pathology and psychology.

    They refer to the biological fact that the fear of penury and of the degrading consequences of being supported by charity are important factors in the preservation of man’s physiological equilibrium. They impel a man to keep fit, to avoid sickness and accidents, and to recover as soon as possible from injuries suffered.

    The experience of the social security system, especially that of the oldest and most complete scheme, the German, has clearly shown the undesirable effects resulting from the elimination of these incentives. No civilized community has callously allowed the incapacitated to perish. But the substitution of a legally enforceable claim to support or sustenance for charitable relief does not seem to agree with human nature as it is. Not metaphysical prepossessions, but considerations of practical expediency make it inadvisable to promulgate an actionable right to sustenance.

    It is, moreover, an illusion to believe that the enactment of such laws could free the indigent from the degrading features inherent in receiving alms. The more openhanded these laws are, the more punctilious must their application become. The discretion of bureaucrats is substituted for the discretion of people whom an inner voice drives to acts of charity. Whether this change renders the lot of those incapacitated any easier, is hard to say.

  2. Unlike private works of mercy, government welfare is indiscriminate: it cannot easily take into account the nature of the recipient or his circumstances due to lack of proper incentives of the bureaucrats; therefore it cannot distinguish between deserving and undeserving poor; therefore it subsidizes sloth.

  3. Objection 1. Rights of the poor to sustenance permit restricting the right of the rich to use their wealth for luxury.

    Reply: First, “luxury” is an entirely arbitrary term which means “a good which only few members of a given society have.” It is used pejoratively to condemn the rich in envy of them. Second, in a capitalist society there is continuous economic progress, and what is luxury today is necessity tomorrow. The rich are pioneers who try out new goods and services before everyone else as “experiments in living,” ignite a desire for them among the masses, and encourage initial production of these goods. They thus serve an important social function.

  4. Objection 2. The liberty to acquire property beyond one’s basic needs is not an unconditional right.

    Reply: Since when is the right to subsistent existence the only right enjoyed by individuals? In fact, in a libertarian society all people have the liberty to acquire wealth merely to sustain their lives or to have pleasures that go beyond mere subsistence. There is no conflict. One right does not take precedence over the other, because both can be exercised at the same time.

  5. Objection 3. Unless the poor are taken care of by the state, they will see the rich as the external physical constraint on their ability to survive.

    Reply: A declaration like that betrays scandalous ignorance of economics. In a capitalist society there prevails a harmony of rightly understood interests of all people. The rich do not maliciously hoard the resources that the poor also want for themselves. The rich, mostly, are producers who use the factors of production, viz., capital, labor, and land, to create consumer goods for the “poor” to buy. They serve the poor. They are benefactors of society, and their wealth is due to the revealed preference of the masses for their work.

  6. Objection 4. Excess wealth is a constraint on the liberty of the poor because there is scarcity of resources.

    Reply: Once more, one person’s getting richer does not imply another person’s getting poorer. This contention would make sense in the case of Vikings raiding English settlements but certainly not in a capitalist society. The market is voluntary exchange for mutual benefit of all parties involved in an exchange. When one pays $x for a widget, both the buyer and the seller benefit; both get richer. Private property and freedom of contract are the only rational ways of dealing with scarcity that permit progressive improvement in the standard of living for all members of society, as well as an economy as such, as opposed to socialist chaos.

  7. Objection 5. To starve to death is to be denied the right to life.

    Reply: The proper meaning of the term “right to life” is the right not to be killed by another man. It is not the right to have one’s life maintained forcibly at someone else’s expense. Judith Thompson writes:

    In some views, having a right to life includes having a right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life. But suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum a man needs for continued life is something he has no right at all to be given?

    If I am sick unto death, and the only thing that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow, then all the same, I have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow.

    It would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from the West Coast to provide it. … But I have no right at all against anybody that he should do this for me.

  8. Objection 6. There may not be voluntary charities in a free society.


    1. This is an empirical claim. What if there will be?

    2. Charity is the force that binds all things together and is the mother of all virtues: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.” (1 Cor 13:1-3) So it is to be expected that voluntary charities will exist.

    3. The argument from the alleged non-existence (or, perhaps, underproduction) of private charities under freedom implies that the rulers are benevolent and enlightened, while their subjects are hard of heart and evil, when the reality is most often the other way around.

    4. When the government is democratic, it is explicitly contrary to reason, because if the majority of the population has voted to tax themselves (and not just the rich) to provide welfare to the poor, then that very fact means that at least the majority is charitable enough to provide the same services privately.

    5. By accepting mercy with gratitude one allows other people to serve him and in so doing earn merit in the eyes of God. (Of course, one should help out of love and not to score points, but points are scored anyway.) This effect is prevented in forced charity both because giving is no longer freely chosen and because the recipients all too often take their benefits for granted and think of the taxpayers as suckers.

    6. Finally, it should be obvious that only private individuals can provide spiritual works of mercy (admonish sinners, comfort the sorrowful, forgive offenses, etc.); why is it assumed that they are incapable of doing corporal works of mercy?

    It might be argued that if the government does not take it upon itself to provide relief to the poor, then such relief will not be organized, that it will be haphazard. But this is just knee-jerk statism. It is equivalent to saying that if the government is not in charge of food provision, then everyone will starve, which is absurd. Even now, when so much of the resources in private hands is taxed away, charities thrive, compete with each other for donors, and serve their clients. Many successful foundations are very well-run and are “big business.” Further, economics teaches us that when taxes are lowered, spending on consumer goods is likely to go up. That includes charitable giving.

  9. Objection 7. The greed, selfishness, and drive of the rich to acquire excess wealth is not fundamental liberty.

    Reply: This is a complete misapprehension of reality.

    1. It is an unsubstantiated accusation that the rich are greedy and selfish. In fact, most people become wealthy not because they love themselves, but because they love their jobs as businessmen or highly paid workers and do them well.

    2. Greed and selfishness are certainly not limited to the rich, but are vices that affect everybody, rich or poor.

    3. You know how some people say that they “can’t afford to be moral”? Well, the rich can “afford” it more than the poor can. Hence we should expect a higher level of virtue among the wealthy.

    4. What about education? The richer one is, the more time and money one can spend on schooling for oneself or one’s children. Or is selflessness to be found among the ignorant?

    5. It is only the wealthy who have the means to display the rare virtue of magnificence.

    6. Technically, everyone is selfish, because everyone wills happiness to himself first, because everyone loves himself more than neighbor, being substantially united with and therefore closer to himself.

    7. The fact that a person is greedy and selfish says nothing about whether he should be forcibly parted with the property he covets so much. Is it OK to steal from bad people? If anything, the harm in terms of lowered utility done by theft to a greedy person is greater than that done to an altruistic person, because the former is more attached to his goods and will suffer more from seeing them confiscated.

    8. Suppose for the sake of argument that the rich are indeed wicked in their character. It is still the case that the poor benefit from the existence of the rich, because the rich possess their wealth only insofar as the consumers of the things they produce approve of their conduct.

      Capitalism is essentially mass production for the masses. The captains of industry, the owners of corporations are subject to the supremacy of the consumers. As Mises writes, the latter “patronize those shops in which they can buy what they want at the cheapest price. Their buying and their abstention from buying decide who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor.”

      Entrepreneurs become rich because the masses, the “poor,” rush to outbid each other on the products offered to them for sale. Personal wealth in a free society is a consequence of previous success in serving consumers. The rich are thus “mandatories” of the consumers, destined to work to please them. If they fail to satisfy their (our) wants, they will forfeit their wealth and their vocation as entrepreneurs and be demoted into the rank of laborers.

      To condemn the rich is to condemn them for enriching society, and to loot them is to discourage production and promote poverty for all.

    Also, of course, there is no such thing as “excess wealth.” It is an arbitrary and meaningless term.

  10. Objection 8. A minimal state must perform the function of preventing the use of violence that could emerge from the anger, envy, or desperation of the poor. The situation could degenerate into chaos.

    Reply: There are many problems with this argument.

    1. It assumes the existence of a large mass of wretched poor in society. But under capitalism this is not the case. The desperately poor who truly cannot work are very few in number, most of them physically or mentally ill. Violence on their part will certainly not jeopardize society.

    2. Everyone ought to realize that society will become poorer if the rich are under constant threat of being robbed. The incentives to gain wealth by serving consumers will be gone. Economic education is the cure, not welfare.

    3. As a rule, the less wealthy majority does not revolt explicitly, but uses the government to enact legislation that will plunder the rich “legally.” We see no moral difference between legal and illegal plunder.

    4. There are ways to check one’s anger, envy, or desperation other than by handing out cash. The Church has been doing it for millennia by teaching virtue.

    5. Suppose for the sake of argument that the poor masses are, in fact, about to revolt. In that case it is in the interest of the rich to band together and donate to private charities in order to forestall the looting. Coercion by government need not be involved.

  11. Objection 9. To vote for a government in a liberal democracy is to consent to the majority’s desire to redistribute wealth.

    Reply: Suppose that the two candidates running for President of the United States have the following platforms.

    Candidate A says that once elected, he will kill you (for no reason at all).

    Candidate B says that once elected, he will put you in prison for life.

    Does voting for Candidate B imply consenting to his policy? Or consider a more direct example.

    Three gangsters hold you up at gunpoint. You object that what they are doing is wrong. They talk among themselves and tell you that you and they constitute a “society” with a need for democratic government. One of them runs for “President” on the spot. Two of the gangsters vote for him, and he wins. Now whatever the “President” does is legal, because, why, he is duly elected. He has the “mandate.” He immediately proceeds to demand your money or your life. If you give him your wallet, are you thereby consenting to being robbed?

    See Democracy or Who Made You King?

13) We support privatization of the Post Office and all other government-run enterprises and, should they prove not to be viable, their going out of business.

  1. See Can the Market Deliver Letters?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *