democracy

CNN's top story this morning is the creation of a National Security Service in America. The BBC's top story (in Britain at least) is attempts to agree an EU budget. Really they are the same story: leaders plan unpopular ways to control us.

Let's look at who voted for this. Let us look at the American numbers - the numbers are much worse in the EU. George W. Bush was elected in 2004. Or at least, that is what we are told. Large numbers of votes were produced by voting machines, and their results can never be tested. Remember that Supreme Court ruling that everyone is entitled to a vote but nobody is entitled to have that vote counted? But I digress.

Based on official figures, in 2004 just over half of Americans voted. And just over half of those voted for Bush. How many of these people really wanted Bush? The "first past the post" or "winner takes all" system means there is no point in voting for who you really want. That would split the vote, and let in your more organized opponents. No, the only real choice is for a compromise candidate. I think it is safe to bet that at least half of those who voted for Bush only did so because they disliked Kerry even more. So the real support is half of half of half - just one eighth of the people wanted him. And do those people then get what they want? No, because politics is all about horse trading, and more compromise. In summary, almost nobody really wants this, but all the other choices (other governments) are even worse.

I could go on, but let us conclude with that one observation: in modern democracies, the vast majority of people do not get the government they want.

Iraq: what to do next

This morning's news is all about George W. Bush's speech on Iraq. Which leaves the question, what SHOULD be done next? Other posts have dealt with the main objective (establish a system based on land rent!) But what about the immediate short term?

GWB tries to build nations using force. But if you want to build a nation, it is better to use carrots than sticks. The immediate strategy must be to support those people who want us, and stop trying to control those who don't. In other words:

1. partition Iraq (e.g. into Kurdish, Sunni, Shi’ite, and smaller micro-states)
2. include a pro-American enclave for those who really want it, with a rule that its borders can expand if (and only if) large numbers of others want to join.

This is only the first step, but we have to start somewhere. Here are some objections:

• The neighbors would object? Unlikely, since we would be leaving them most of the country. But if they did, they lack the power to do anything about it. This applies to nations (Iran, Turkey, etc.) and to warlords in the new micro states.
• We could not police the borders? A clearly defined border is fairly easy to police, if there is sufficient surveillance inside, and everybody inside wants to be there.
• Does this lead to equally undesirable police surveillance states? They are only undesirable if people are not free to leave. Under this system, Iraq would have as many states as there are differences of opinion, but the strong ones would be at peace.
• Federations of microstates cannot survive - look at Yugoslavia? Or look at the USA. But regarding Yugoslavia, land rent would have solved this problem. The Yugoslav crisis was made much worse because the west dithered and did not have clear rules for action. Land rent provides those clear rules. It defines what is and is not acceptable for a nation state.
• Partitioning would create more Islamic theocracies, which would strengthen their neighbors? First, the nations would not last very long as their smartest people gradually left to join the more attractive western microstate. Second, with the west forbidden to interfere, the ordinary people would have less reason to fear us.

In short, when nation building, it is better to use carrots instead of sticks.

third world nurses

Along with today's news item about Zimbabwe refugees, comes another "don't let them come here" story. The British NHS wants more nurses. Nurses take a long time to train, so it hires some from overseas. Including third world countries. As a result, according to The Independent,

"there are more Malawian nurses in Birmingham [England] than in
Malawi"

The government is being urged to stop hiring nurses from third world countries. But that misses the point! Malawi needs nurses because it is poor. Poverty is the problem, not the health service. There may be reasons for the poverty that are easy to address, like unequal trade. If so, these problems can be fixed. But if there are no obvious reasons, then we are faced with a failing business. The business of government is, after all, simply another form of business.

Land rent is the solution. Land rent, if applied between governments, brings the facts of life to governments: no business has a divine right to exist. Not even a government. By charging rent, a land rent system demands a reasonable level of economic competence. When a business can no longer pay the rent, another business moves in and takes over.

Would this lead to war and instability? How could this be implemented? Does this simply mean bringing democracy to the third world? Isn't that extraordinary difficult? All these questions will be answered in the coming months, by looking at examples from the news. But one topic at a time, please! :)

In the short term, if we care about Malawi's health, we could pay to send our own nurses over there. Sure, it would be hideously expensive because the Malawians could not afford our prices. But it might help us remember that the real problem is poverty. Maybe it would help focus the mind.

In summary, note the contrast. Sending the nurses back means we try to solve poverty by trapping more people inside a failing country. Land rent, on the other hand, fixes the country.

Zimbabwe asylum seekers

Two closely related news items made headlines today on the BBC (in Britain, but similar things happen in other countries). In the first, failed asylum seekers from Zimbabwe are being sent back. But on what basis?

Why is this country "ours"? Because our ancestors were either welcomed here or we took it by force! We have no more right to this country than they do. We are all immigrants, or descendants of immigrants. It is another of those gaps in our thinking. Long term, anyone who is willing to work is a net contributor to our wealth. So by keeping them out:

• We impoverish ourselves
• We send some of them to their deaths (Robert Mugabe, anyone?)
• We support the dictator - his people are trapped because they have nowhere to go
• We lose any moral authority to move in and change his system - we show that our motivation is short term gain, even at great human cost
• We show ourselves to be intellectually bankrupt. People are the greatest wealth creating resource, yet we are unable to turn their desire and muscle into wealth. We fail at the simplest task of government: to turn willing workers into wealth. As usual, see the land rent web site for more information.

identity cards

Today's top BBC news item (well last night actually) was identity cards. Tony Blair is pushing ahead with them, and others say they are dangerous, useless, expensive, etc. Under the present system that is quite right.

• Do you trust your rulers to know everything about you?
• Can they find out everything without it being ridiculously expensive?
• Can they do it without making a lot of errors?

The answer to all three is probably "no." And yet we do trust some people in this regard:

• Most of us like living in families, even though families give us very little privacy
• Most of us choose to work for employers, even though employers can read our work emails and have cameras everywhere (if they wish)
• Most of us would love to live in a little village where everyone knows everyone else - as long as they were all people like us - sometimes rich people try to recreate this with gated communities

Why do we sometimes choose to give up privacy? Because it offers safety, friendship and efficiency. When are we happy to give up privacy? When we are surrounded by people we trust. Either because they are our immediate family or because we chose them (friends).

The fact that people (rightly) oppose identity cards is proof that we (rightly) do not trust our own society. That is a serious problem. What is the solution? That will be discussed in more detail on another day. But the main points are summarized on the land rent web site.

"answers are overrated"

In another forum, a friend said that seeking answers is overrated, and we should just "be." I have heard that from more than one place. It is wise advice in some cases. If you want a quiet life, if you want to fit in with your friends, if you want peace, then seeking answers is a bad idea. Looking for answers can drive you crazy, and you may never find them. Or you may think you find them, and devote your life to them, yet find our on your death bed that you were wrong. Or you may never find out. The quest for answers will lead to a lot of grief. And if you want to make a small difference, just a very small improvement, then you don't need to look - the way to make a small improvement is usually obvious.

But if you want to try to change things, if you think that the present world - full of injustice and starvation - is just not acceptable, then you don't have much choice. You might not find the answers. You might not make the difference you want to make. But you will need answers. Ignorance is not an option.

crime, and how to live without it

The main headline on the BBC today is Iraq again. So much could be said about that, but for the sake of variety let us turn to CNN.com: "Aruba judge freed in missing teen case." In this case, a judge's son is a suspect in a criminal investigation, but the case has been difficult to prove. Either an innocent family has been put through mental torture, or a guilty man will go free. This case illustrates problems that are widespread and serious.

1. A (hopefully small) percentage of all convicted "criminals" will be innocent.
2. A (usually large) percentage of guilty men are never caught.
3. When crimes are identified, it is seldom clear exactly what happened, so we can have little confidence that the correct sentence is passed.
4. It all takes a very long time.
5. And costs a huge amount of money.

So the whole system is wrong.

But there is an alternative. If we accept that people own all the wealth they create, this leads to a system of land rent, and this leads to freedom to individually choose your own form of government (as long as you pay the market price). If we choose our own form of government, we get exactly the laws and the leaders that we want (at an individual level), and so we have much greater trust, and closer communities where everyone watches out for everyone else. There is greater surveillance, just as there is greater surveillance within families and businesses. And we don't mind this, it makes us feel safe, because we trust the people in charge - they are our people. Result: practically no crime.

Next time you hear about crime, remember that we do have a choice.

Iraq without theft

Headlines today about Iraq. More killing, more misery. So much could be said. Where to start? I want to make this short, so let's look at just one issue: land rent.

The most obvious result of a rational definition of property is Georgist style land rent. As explained on answersanswers.com, society creates part of the value the value of land (or other resources such as oil), and so it owns that value and can claim it as rent. One result is that nobody can profit unfairly from occupying land (or oil or water or anything else). This simple change, on its own, would have changed everything in the Iraq conflict:

1. First, there would be no incentive for America (or anyone else) to covet Iraq's natural resources. Result: no danger of rushing too fast into war.
2. Second result: more trust from allies, so more allies, greater support, and a much better job all round.
3. Third result: more trust from Iraqis, and less insurgency. Nobody could credibly claim that Americans were out to steal anything. Any remaining insurgents would have no sympathy or support.
4. Fourth result: if we assume that national borders are sacrosanct, then as far as Iraqi oil is concerned, "society" equals Iraq. So the ordinary Iraqis can claim their fair share of oil revenues. If land rent was written in stone, Iraqis would have no reason to fear foreign oil companies (or others using their resources), and every reason to welcome them.

Put land rent into the Iraqi constitution. It's as simple as that.

short blogs

I want to keep my blog items very short. I really do. Short blogs rely on shortcuts - words or phrases where people know what you mean. Or they talk about popular topics that are also covered elsewhere. But when I say "property" or "land rent" nobody knows what I mean, so I need a brief description.

It also helps to say uncontroversial things. But much of what I post is controversial. I need to cover the most obvious criticisms within each blog, or everybody would leave, muttering "what an idiot..

I am trying hard to make these blogs shorter. Really I am. But please be patient when I often fail.

the Asian tsunami

Each day I plan to look at the main headline on either the BBC or CNN. This morning, the BBC's main headline is "tsunami, 6 months on." As with all so-called natural disasters, the real issue is financial, and the problem could be prevented - or solved - by accepting a rational definition of property.

1. Warnings: The only people who knew about the quake were scientists in Hawaii. Why Hawaii? Because these are Americans, so they have more money, so they have better equipment. But they were thousands of miles away, so did not work out the possible danger until much later. Imagine if scientists had enjoyed their kind of equipment near Sumatra. The scale and danger would have been obvious, and warnings would have been much earlier and much stronger.

2. Destruction: Grass huts are easily destroyed, so tens of thousands were killed, and many more left homeless. Compare this to what happens in America (hurricanes, earthquakes, Mount St Helens, etc.). People either have stronger houses or cars to escape, or good insurance. Result: a far smaller tragedy. It's a financial issue.

3. Poverty. OK, so things would be better if they had a lot more money. So how do we make them wealthy? Let's look at how the repairs have gone, to get some clues from the BBC report:

"Reconstruction work got off to a slow start. A senior official said in May he was shocked at how little had been done. Hold-ups in approval for projects and funds have been blamed." ... "much of the international aid donated after the tragedy was distributed among wealthy landowners instead of to those worst hit."

Another issue is that some of the money went to the Tamil Tigers. Was this right or wrong? A rational definition of property would have answered this question by creating a transparent system of lucrative incentives and crushing costs for incompetence.

4. Wealth creation - how a rational definition of property creates vast wealth: If an official (or anyone else, anywhere in the world) finds a way to do something better, they can create wealth - so it is their property. If you stop them, you are destroying wealth. The potential gains are vast - it is like offering everyone a high chance to win the lottery.

• How do we know who the good guys are? Same principle applies here - property. A society which makes cause and effect easier to see, encourages wealth creation, In other words, a property of that society is easier wealth creation. So that society owns a proportion of that new wealth.
• How do we measure the correct percentage? The same principle applies again. A university (or think tank or individual) that finds a good way to measure effectiveness will encourage wealth creation. That newly created wealth (the percentage created by the university) is the property of the university.
• But how do we stop the university from cheating? Same principle applies. A society that ensures competition, creates wealth.
• How do we minimize bureaucracy? Same principle. Same answer.
• How do we stop some smart western company from fixing the beaches and claiming all the wealth? Same principle. The smart entrepreneur relies on society, so society has created (and owns) part of that wealth.
• This leads to a number of other questions: what specific actions should be taken? What about hard-to-measure forms of wealth? What about welfare systems? What about borders? What about countries that won't make these changes? What about powerful opposition? All these questions are answered by a rational definition of property. See future posts for examples!

5. Concrete proposals: So far I've talked general principles. Here are two concrete proposals for any society that wants to increase its wealth.

1. Write it into law that anyone who can increase wealth in a particular area must be allowed to do so, and keep the results of their unique actions. (At this simple first stage, the courts must decide what constitutes wealth in each case, and how much difference each person makes, and the likelihood that a person can do what he claims, and the wider implications of any action. The courts are not the best way - long term, we need ways to let the market decide, but that is a topic for another day.)
2. Increase transparency in the system at every level, so that courts have an easier time of deciding who is right and wrong.

These two suggestions raise many other issues. The main issues are covered in the website. Other issues will be covered in the weeks and months to follow, using examples from the news headlines.

6. The current system: Our current economic and political systems have evolved from generations of politicians trying to maximize their personal power. Often they mean well, but the pressures are real. It is time to cut away the nonsense and take a rational approach to property. The longer we wait, the more people will die.

property, rights and law: a rant

Several posts ago, I promised to give examples of gaps in our thinking. Later I gave the example of religion. Today I want to rant about property. And it's my Blog, so I'm gonna talk about what I want, so there.

In the last post I said that property means causality or responsibility. Most economists have a different definition, based on rights. But this is a huge gap in our thinking. Where do "rights" come from? They have no rational basis! We just make them up. If we are allowed to make up rules as we go along, then there are no rules at all.

Land ownership is just the most obvious example of this nonsense. Look at the history of Britain, or America, or any other country. Hundreds (or thousands) of years ago, one army killed thousands of people in another army (and probably plenty of civilians as well). And it then said that it owned the country, and started giving or selling parts to its friends. Then those "owners" claimed a moral right to live there and charge rent to other people! It's crazy!

People who kill thousands (or millions) and steal a whole country are called heroes. They write their history so they look good, then write the laws to stop anyone else doing what they did. And the laws say that people who only kill one or two, or steal small things, must be thrown in jail! The whole system is corrupt, hypocritical, dishonest, and just plain bad. It's called realpolitik, it is the basis of our society, and no amount of whitewashing history will change it.

And don't go saying "that was all a long time ago" as if time can change wrong into right. The violence (or intimidation, the threat of violence) goes on today. The theft by people grabbing wealth they did not create) goes on today. It is all discussed on the web site. I won't repeat it all here. I just want to point out a rather glaring gap in our thinking: our civilizations run on violence and theft. Great evil is rewarded, and small evil is punished. And we call that morality.

OK, enough ranting and raving. It is one thing to point out a problem. What about a solution? Land rent is the solution. It's probably time to start commenting on the news. Hopefully by showing example after example, day after day, this will become clear.

property and starvation

it has always bugged me that people are starving in the world. I learned that fact when I was nine and have never been able to get past it. Other people get used to it, and they go on and concentrate on careers and fun and relationships and that other stuff. But I never had that skill. I could never get used to it, could never put the fact to one side - it was always there in my head. Somehow, nothing else seemed to be a higher priority. People are starving to death.

So please forgive me if I go on about politics and economics and all that boring stuff.

The good news is that the solution is simple. It's called justice. Or in other words, property. I use the world "property" in the strict scientific or programming sense:

"A characteristic trait or peculiarity, especially one serving to define or
describe its possessor. A characteristic attribute possessed by all
members of a class."

One person has the property of making others happy. Another person has the property of causing chaos. Another has the property that they can paint pictures. Another has the property that they eat a lot. And so on and so on. You measure a property by seeing what things are like with a person or action, then seeing what things are like without the person or action. the difference is a property of that person. Another word might be causality. Or responsibility.

Why does this matter? What does it have to do with starvation? Well, this (the scientific or programming definition of property) is the basis for a fair and just society. It naturally leads to the concept of land rent. This in turn leads to the idea that we can choose our own governments, as long as we pay the market price. It's all described at www.AnswersAnswers.com

The point is, the answer is simple and intuitive. Start from property (or start from nothing and derive property from first principles) and everything else falls into place. As I hope to show through examples from the news.

me, me, me

Reading back over these Blogs, they are all first person pronoun! LOL!
In my defense, I would like the jury to consider two items.

1. First, I want to protect my children, and give my wife some privacy (she isn't into this sort of thing). I usually say too much, so I think it would be too risky to name names. My youngest daughter thinks this Blog should be full of pictures of her pulling faces, but I am not sure if this is a good idea. What do you think?
2. Second, these are only the first posts. Most of the Blog from now on will be about issues and events. It just seemed like a good idea to tell you where this stuff is coming from.

Aw, who am I trying to kid? Hey everyone. look at me! Hey! Hello? Hello...? Echo....echo...echo...echo...

god of the gaps

In an earlier post I promised to give examples of gaps in our thinking. Well, we may as well start with the big one.

Many years ago I trained to be a physics teacher. (I also studied film and media and marketing, but that's another story.) I spent most of my time in the library reading other topics. One article I remember was in a journal for science teachers. The (Christian) author was talking about god. He warned against the 'god of the gaps' theory. Whenever there is something we don't understand, like coincidences or death or the origin of the universe, we say "God did it." But as science progresses we find more mundane explanations. God is constantly being pushed back into the smaller and smaller gaps in our knowledge. The (Christian) author didn't like the idea of a constantly retreating god. But the phrase "god of the gaps" is accurate, and it stuck with me.

Most people believe in a god of some kind, or at least in spiritual forces. There is nothing wrong with that in general terms - most of the universe is a mystery to us, and we may as well call it something. In fact, statistically speaking there probably is a god of some kind (that's a topic for another post). I only have a problem with this when our god/mystery/spirit/force is given precise shape. If we have rational evidence that this particular form of god exists, then where is that evidence? In feelings? Anecdotes? That same evidence can be used to argue for the precise opposite.

Most believers have a set of reasons they use to justify their belief. Yet these reasons disappear on close inspection. I know from hard experience. I was once a lay minister, and before that a full time missionary. I spent many years examining my beliefs, and even made a thousand page website to defend my church. But the closer I looked, the more that my god ran away and hid in the gaps. Here is just one example: Creationists say it is statistically unlikely for a Big Bang to occur. (They are wrong of course, but they are right in the sense that the Big Bang is amazing.) But how much less likely is it for a complex life form to suddenly appear out of nothing and then say "let there be life!" It just doesn't make any sense. It represents a massive gap in our rational world view. Yet most people believe in it. or something like it. God is the biggest gap of all.

Does the gap matter? Yes, because this same god gets involved in birth and marriage and life and death and wars and land ownership and sex and stem cell research and homosexuality and everything else. Most people base all of their most important decisions on something that probably isn't true. How do you debate with someone like that? I can't do it. It just makes my head swim. And for the first half of my life I was one of them. My intellectual life was based on a yawning chasm, a vast gap, an empty hole that I refused to look into. Most of my friends are still in that state. And if I point it out, I become very unpopular. It is extremely rude to point out when people are basing their whole lives on lies. And if you do get through to someone, they start to panic inside - "what if life has no meaning?" - and they run back to the security of the myth.

Most people base their lives on a gap, a hole, an emperor with no clothes. There are better alternatives to believing in specific gods, but they require us first to recognize the weakness of the existing ideas. That makes people very, very uncomfortable, so they never get past that first step.

LOL! I never said this Blog would be popular. :)

coming attractions

I started this Blog two days ago, and already have too many posts to show on one page. Don't worry, I will slow down. But I don't want to announce this site to the world until there is something worth reading. And there is so much I want to say! It might be helpful to give an overview of past and (probable) future topics.

I don't know how other Blogs work, but this one can be looked on as a constantly growing essay.

• The early posts (the first ten or so) are the introduction.
• Then the theme is expanded (the current posts about different philosophies).
• After that, the Blog will settle down into comments on the news, showing (hopefully) how land rent will solve the problems.

I don't want the Blog to be too heavy going, so there will be more light hearted posts. For example, the first few posts are very serious, so I then added a few posts on games, fun, and other stuff.

Some topics I want to cover over the next few days include:

• my game/book (the project I am always working on)
• various economic issues
• various political theories
• various religious ideas
• and then, in a week or do, settle down into commenting on whatever is big in the news plus anything else that interests me. Isn't it great how Blogs can be totally "me, me, me"!

Any other suggestions?

P.S. The heart of this site is the 'answers, answers' page at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tolworthy/answersanswers/index.html

life is simple

I like the simple life. We spend our time on so much nonsense. We spend so much time earning money we don't need (our ancestors were just as happy with less), and making things look clean and tidy (I like a tidy life, but I have a lot of higher priorities that always get in the way), and on entertainment that isn't very entertaining, and fashion, and appearances, and so much else.

Life really is simple. The animals know it. You eat, sleep and reproduce. Everything else is just a means to an end. We work to eat, we relax to regain our energies, and we have friends because they help ensure our survival.

Of course, these simple elements soon arrange themselves in novel and surprising ways. For example, we (humans) need relatively huge brains (with enlarged frontal lobes) just to cope with social interactions. But just like waves on the sea, these complex features have very simple causes. If we understand the causes we can see past the complexity and see the underlying simplicity. Understanding the causes also gives us more power to change things.

If you reduce life to its simplest level (eat sleep, reproduce) you get accused of reductionism, of taking the joy out of life. But I say "j'accuse"! The people who take the joy out of life are the puritans and those who can't see beyond the present. There is nothing more joyful than rest after a hard day, or love, or food when you are hungry. And there is nothing more inspiring than the universe and endless potential.

I want a simple world without all the nonsense and confusion. I want a world of peace and understanding and justice and freedom. My 'answers' web site might look complicated, but it's much simpler than the alternative.

I have a dream

It's a funny old world. Everyone says that money is not the most important thing to them, yet we spend most of our time earning it. In the same way, most women say they prefer gentle, sensitive men, but given the choice between an idiot in a fast car and a bookworm, we all know who is chosen. What we say and what we do are not the same thing. But back to the subject of money.

Compared with fifty years ago, we (in the west) are almost all much wealthier. We have houses and cars and TVs and videos and so many other luxuries. Compared with a hundred years ago we all live like kings. Compared with a thousand, or ten thousand years ago, we live like gods.

I want to return to a living standard of fifty years ago, and use the rest of my time and money for more useful things. I don't mean have everything like it was fifty years ago - some things back then were more expensive - computers for example. But I mean living with the same tiny house and limited food, no car (if possible), etc. Then I want to spend my spare time and spare money on things that really matter (See the other post on priorities).

I want to be the impoverished artist in his garret, working on truly great and important things. I can't do it now because I have commitments to my wife and children, but one day I will do it. I hope I can find someone who feels the same way. I can't offer any money. I can't offer anything but a crazy dream and a faraway look in my eye. But I have a dream and one day I will live that dream, even if I have to do it alone. But I hope I won't be alone. I don't like being alone.

fun

I am a fun loving person. Some of the things I enjoy:

• A sunny day
• Cat watching
• Physical intimacy
• Funny exmormons talking about the absurdity of the church
• Creating things
• Well written political essays or political comedy - gentle but highly astute stuff
• Well written nonfiction essays (PJ O'Rourke etc., etc.)
• [edited to add: and anything by Richard Dawkins!! Or anyone like him: witty, modest, gentle, incredibly well informed, and biting with his observations]
• Great science fiction writers, and anyone who can see the essential ironies of the world.
• Gloriously silly movie moments. The last time I laughed out loud at a movie was the marriage scene in Three Men and a Little Lady, where the (fake) minster says "does anyone have any reason? Even a a tiny one? It may not seem significant now, but in the great scheme of things..." As you can probably tell, I don't watch many movies.
• Anything by Steven Fry.
• Good TV discovery programs. Not the usual Hitler/Sharks stuff (boring, boring) but the quirky, genuine discoveries. Victorian drainage, Adam Hart Davis, Tony Robinson, that sort of thing.

Unfortunately, nobody else in my family enjoys these things, and some of the things (e.g. the church, or political things) are easy to misunderstand, so I have to keep quiet and laugh inside. So everyone thinks I am too serious. I am a Frasier in a world of Martins. Unfortunately I don't have a Niles. But please remember, when I look deadly serious outside, inside I am often smiling.

size matters

I'm six foot six (or six foot seven in the mornings - cartilage compresses overnight as you know). This creates joys and problems that regular sized people can never know. I am sure that outsize people of all kinds know this. It's better now, but when I was young it was almost impossible to find shoes to fit. I remember a shopping mall with a sports shoe store. There were sports shoes up and down the walls, thousands of them. And there was no point even entering the store, because I knew from weary experience that not one of them would fit me. The same went for other clothes. Ever since then I have never cared for fashion. But the good news is there is far more choice for tall people these days. Life is better!

You have to be outsized to appreciate the luxurious decadent joy of having socks that fit. It doesn't happen often, and even then the socks usually shrink in the wash. But when it happens, it is bliss! I suppose that people who can buy cheap socks just have a totally different experience of life. The same goes for bumping your head on door frames, and having holidays in quaint cottages where you can never stand up straight.

Growing up tall has other results. I never learned to dance comfortably. Why? At every disco, everybody could see me (head and shoulders above etc.) and if I twisted my body, my not-quite-fitting clothes would come untucked. Don't get me started on not-quite-fitting clothes. I love my Mom dearly, but every time she sees clothes that look large to her, she buys them for me. And they almost never fit but I must still look enthusiastic. Still, it is a sign of love, and I am grateful for that.

Then there are ergonomic seats that are only ergonomic for average sized people, and are quite painful for the rest of us. And beds that are too short (foot boards are the worst!) And cars, and knocking things over as you walk past (or maybe I'm just clumsy?) and so on and so on.

There are of course great advantages with being tall. Socially it is (generally) a positive thing. And it gives a certain confidence to look down on people. (And it is a very strange and unnerving experience when I occasionally meet someone taller than myself - I'm just not used to it, especially living in a remote country area!) I remember the only time in my life when I was bullied. The little kid picked on me because I was the biggest kid in school and therefore a threat. But I just couldn't get scared of him. He was so little. I didn't need any skill at fighting, I could just sit on him. For a few weeks f my childhood, I had a reputation as the boy without fear. Oh happy days :)

If you are outsized (and probably if you are very small), you see the world in a different way. Any outsize (or petite size) people reading this?

priorities

It's an odd thing. If you think that starvation and injustice is more important than the comfort of your friends, that makes you weird. You are supposed to care about these things, but most of the time you are supposed to put other things first If you talk about these things and continue to think about them all the time, that is supposed to be unhealthy.

Makes you think.

Anyway, enough of the serious stuff. It makes people uncomfortable. Nobody wants to hear it.

Zak McKracken

Ten reasons why Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders is the greatest game of all time:

1. It's positive: you save the world using your brain, but without killing anyone
2. It's fun - most non-violent games are (yawn) dull.
3. It's realistic: you play an ordinary guy in an ordinary city.
4. It's ground breaking: most of the characters are female, and are NOT chosen for their chest size
5. It's huge: travel the world, go to other planets
6. It has beautifully efficient coding - the low-res version fits on one 320K disk
7. It's mind expanding - all the main ideas are based# on genuine 'fringe' phenomena
8. It works at your own pace - no mindless clicking, very few times puzzles
9. It has had a greater influence on players than pretty much any single game (i.e not including franchises) since Colossal Cave. There has never been an official sequel, yet 17 years after its release there's another fan sequel coming out this year, there was one last year, another one is due out next year... it seems to reach parts that other games don't reach.
10. It was the first proper computer game I ever played. Everything afterward has been an anticlimax. But this year should see the release of a major fan-made sequel. I can hardly wait!

loneliness

This is another post rescued from another board. I posted it on the Foyer, where a lot of people - like me - are married to devout Mormons. (TBM = True Believing Mormon.)
_____________________________________

Like many here, I have a compromise existence with a TBM family. We get on more or less fine as long as we don't discuss the church. So far so normal. All marriages and all families involve compromise. But this seems to lead to extreme feelings of isolation that are probably not justified.

Sometimes I feel incredibly alone. (Don't worry, this post has a happy ending.) I have thoughts and desires and ideas and feelings that I cannot share with anyone round me. I can share some things over the Internet, but even the Net has its limits. Some kinds of communication need a ton of context, body language, a longer term relationship, etc. Sometimes I look for people on the Net who think like I do. I never find them. That makes me feel even more alone - when you are alone on the Net, you are REALLY alone.

Living in a TBM home makes things worse. I cannot play music or subscribe to web sites or read magazines that would be misunderstood. Sure, I can do these things in secret, but that ain't healthy. And for the sake of harmony, I must feign interest in things that are naturally uninteresting to me. In summary, being in a TBM family, loneliness seems absolute and final. Does anyone else ever feel like that?

End of depressing part. Start of hopeful part.

Today I bought a political satire magazine. I started at the back (as you do) and found all kinds of "alternative" lifestyle and idea ads. And suddenly I realized that I was not really alone. Sure, nobody thinks exactly like me (or even close), but plenty of people know what it is like to feel different and to question things. I fit in perfectly in a very large sub group in society (the one labeled "other"). This was quite a wonderful revelation.

An even more wonderful revelation was when I realized that you do not need to fit in perfectly to be happy. You only need to be a little bit close. Plenty of people are a little bit close to me, lifestyle and goal wise. I only feel lonely because I am right in the middle of a group who are unusually different from me. But this will not always be the case. This is a choice I have made for the sake of the children, and when they are older I can choose something else. My life is not hopeless. It is extremely hopeful.

Sometimes when you're in the middle of Mormonland you have to keep reminding yourself "most of the world is NOT like this." It is so easy to forget.

An old post from another board

This something I posted on May 16th this year at another board, where people know me fairly well. It seems appropriate to repost it here. The forum was entitled 'the muse that afflicts me. So I entitled my post "The muse that afflicted me was Calliope."

__________

If you have ever felt loneliness - self-imposed, crushing loneliness of the ironic kind (though not in a funny way - sometimes irony is not funny), then this post may be of interest, but otherwise you may want to read something else. It is rather long, and the train of thought may not always be clear. In an attempt to keep organized, I have added subheadings.

This morning

I woke up very early this morning. I was very, very tired, but could not sleep. I felt awful. Wrong, bad, afraid. The body is purely physical, and there are probably things I could do to lessen the discomfort. I am sure that stomach acid was involved. But the immediate cause was clear - my thoughts. The deeper cause was not so clear, but took a little thought.
At this point may I say how much I love the physical world. It is the only thing that is real. It gives us freedom, it gives us each a brain, that most wonderful of all tools - and it gives me a body that is even smarter than the brain. It gives freedom, because with some physical knowledge I could have taken some alkali and relieved the immediate problem without any further effort. (Though I chose not to - I needed to address the deeper issues.) The brain is so wonderful because, even as I felt awful, I knew that given enough time I could find a solution. So I went downstairs, sat in a chair, continued to feel awful, but eventually found the answer. Lastly, the body is smarter than the brain because it knew something was wrong before I (my conscious mind) did. My body tells me when I need to change. It tells me than things are right or things are wrong. Many times in the past my body has made me change direction, and saved me from wasting my life. The body is like the Holy Spirit, only real.

The problem

The problem, in general terms, was not hard to find. It is a problem I have wrestled with for the past three years (and unconsciously for most of my life). But this morning it came time to act. To change direction. The problem can no longer be ignored. Metaphorically, I am running very fast, head down, into a brick wall. And I am choosing to run on broken glass while carrying an unfeasibly large weight. And, to complete the analogy, it feels like I am hitting my loved ones in the face as I pass them, and they have grown very tired of being hit.
Literally, I have devoted my life to doing as much good as I can. See how pretentious that sounds? Even saying it makes me sound either arrogant or deluded, and further pushes people away. For the sake of historical interest, I will give a brief history of this, but first let's talk about muses that afflict us.

The muse that afflicts me

The muse that afflicts me is Calliope, eldest of the muses, the muse of philosophy and epic poetry. She afflicts me in a way that is most appropriate for a Greek myth: she torments me by showing me a vision that is noble and good (more on this anon), more desirable than anything else, yet will destroy me and make me miserable if I follow it.
It will destroy me because: First, it will alienate me from loved ones, and I need loved ones. Second, it riddles me with self-doubt. I concentrate on my plans, always looking for problems, always calculating the possibility of failure. Nobody likes a self-obsessed self doubter. Ironically, ignorant people who confidently plough into the unknown are generally happy (because ignorance is bliss) and attractive to others (because other people are lost as well, and want to be led).

A little history...

A little history might be in order. I was a very happy child, with unlimited self confidence, and I seemed to be good at everything I tried (except sports, but I never cared much for sports - though I admire those who hones their bodies and skills). At the age of 9 I discovered that there were serious problems in the world (starvation, torture, etc.). By the age of 12 I decided what I wanted to do with my life: find out why these things happen, thus giving the next generation a head start in solving those problems. I then wasted twenty years trying to believe that the church was the solution.
Now I am back on track, but those twenty years are years I will never regain. In hindsight I should have followed my dream, then let a career follow. Maybe I would never have married, but I would have been in a good position to find someone who felt roughly the same way as me. Instead, I put all my faith in a church that tied me in knots then betrayed me. Result: having wasted so much energy on nonsense, and tried to be a breadwinner and family man when it was not time, I now have low economic prospects, and commitments to people I love, but have nothing in common with.

Oh the irony

If you want to make the world the best you possibly can, then you have to enter the realm of ideas. Ideas are more powerful than actions, because ideas control actions. One idea can motivate action in a whole nation or a world. Think of ideas like freedom, love, democracy, religion, or wealth. And if you want to change the world, you must start from a premise that the whole world is wrong. The result? In order to help people you must distance yourself from people. In order to love people, you must become a stranger to them and oppose what they do.
"Surely you exaggerate" I hear you say. "Surely you do not need to distance yourself from people? Surely you do not need to oppose them?" To understand the exquisite power of the torment, you need to look at the depth of the evil in the world, and ask yourself about the alternatives to being a self-righteous jerk (my chosen strategy).

The world is evil

Most of the world is either unwilling or incapable of thinking rationally (see the dominance of religion, belief in personal life after death, etc.) That is not just ignorance (we are all guilty of that). It is evil, because the ignorance is willful - most people choose ignorance, and distrust those who, having paid the price of knowledge, disagree with them. So they fight against any new ideas, including better ones..
It gets worse. Even those who think clearly, spend practically all of their time and money on themselves or their families, and not on justice, absolute poverty, etc. What we call romantic love rewards those who focus on the (already wealthy) individual and punishes those who care more about the big picture. Justice is simply irrelevant to most people - they show zero interest in the economics of where their wealth comes from.
Of course, as a relativist, I cannot blame people for this. We are all in the business of ignorant survival. One person's selfish greed is another person's principled morality. I do not expect anyone to agree with me. Why would they want to?

My hopes and dreams

What are these abstract ideas I talk about? They are summed up, with reasons, in one of my web sites, www.AnswersAnswers.com. To dater, I have received many kind remarks along the lines of "I am happy that you have found answers that satisfy you" but it has failed to set the world alight. I think half of the 400 hits are from my own computer. As far as I can see from feedback, it is so far off the wall almost nobody challenges any of it. Those who do comment on parts show that they d not understand it. Which is my failure to explain, but to explain it properly would take hundreds of pages. I have compressed years of study and thousands of pages of notes into a single page. I think it is to far 'out there' to be understood.
Plan 'B' is to incorporate these ideas, in a friendly fashion, in a game I am creating. It should be finished in four years, and will illustrate the various principles in entertaining ways. But realistically I don't expect that to make much difference at first. People buy games to be entertained, not to be challenged. Plan 'C' is very short term - within the next week. I will upload a web site on Georgism that I hope will make things much simpler. But again I don't really expect the world to flock to my site and be converted. The ideas are challenging, even though they are simple. People do not like to be told they are wrong.
Long term, I think that people will come back and come back to them. I have spent a very long time on these ideas and they will stand up to a lot of scrutiny. They have depth. I think they have a fighting chance of making a difference in the long term. but the long term means when I am old or dead, and that does not help me now.

Looking for a moral way out

The obvious response is "clearly your holier than thou attitude does not make you happy. So try a different way." But this is where the muse really starts afflicting. The 'holier than thou' attitude probably DOES work. Even though it may make a person unpopular, that person (given a good family and a wealthy government) will probably survive reasonably well, with friends of a sort. So the physical costs are relatively low. But the potential benefits are immense. If I write down everything I find, my ideas can last for hundreds of years. I am probably wrong, but if a hundred people do this, or a thousand people, one of them will have genuinely good ideas. And that one person with good ideas will do more good for the world than the moderate harm caused by the thousands of failed thinkers.
So intellectually, being the lone searcher is a good strategy. Unfortunately, evolution means my brain is a summary of all my ancestors. Most of my ancestors, by definition, will be ordinary people with ordinary strategies. So when I consciously decide on a strategy that goes against everything my body has learned, by body screams "No! don't do it! Make friends instead! Look after number one!". I suppose this is what Paul meant by the spirit being willing but the body weak.
And like I said, my body is smarter than me (in terms of personal survival and pleasure, at least). My goal is to please both my mind and my body, to do the best I can AND be happy. But that is a tall order. I was not designed for that.

Looking for my tribe

As indicated, my approach tends to alienate people. At a distance, people see someone who disagrees with what they think. Close up, they see a man who appears to care more for books than people. And the fact is that I disagree with most people on a lot of things. If I ever come across as agreeable, it is only because I have learned when to keep quiet.
The world is a very big place, and no doubt there are people out there who think as I do. But after years of searching (mainly on the web, their natural home) I must conclude that they never form a critical mass. The closest I have found are Georgists (qv Henry George). But Georgists are thin on the ground, and so they get their social life in other areas - as Christians, Republicans, with their own families, etc. There is no social side to Georgism. Georgist discussion boards are all about economic technicalities. Last month a Georgist discussion board was launched that tried to go further, but so far there are only two regular contributors, a young anarchist man and myself. He's a nice guy and all, but he's not what you would call a community.
I feel like the last dodo, wandering around making dodo sounds and never hearing anything in return.

Looking for my tribe on an emotional level

Although my ideas are very unusual, my experience is surely more common? Surely many people feel misunderstood, lonely, etc.? Yes, and I spent a depressing few hours finding them on the Net, only to discover that my brand of being misunderstood is truly unique. It's pretty bad when even other lonely people don't understand you.
For example, I concluded that, on an emotional level, I don't want to save the world. I searched for the phrase "I don't want to save the world." Lots of people say that, but none of them have ever tried. And most of them don't even think it is possible. When they despair, it is the despair of someone who has a minor setback but they basically agree with their peers on all major issues. I am not like them.

Big Brother

I think that is why I keep coming back to the book 1984. Not as a commentary on Mormons, but as a commentary on society in general - any society. It is hard to kick against the pricks. Somewhere deep inside we all want to love big brother. We all want to believe that everything is OK and we all go to heaven when we die.
I think it would be easier if I was less optimistic. If I could just rage against the machine and say, like most people, "it cannot be done." Yet it can be done. It just requires a very high price from the people who do it. Especially since most of them will fail in the attempt. The book 1984 was all the more tragic because The Party COULD be defeated. The party was extremely inefficient. It had all of the weaknesses of Stalinism without any of the strengths (as well as murdering millions, Stalin saved millions by industrializing a medieval economy). The Party could be defeated either from within - by catastrophic failure - or from outside, by any nation that could, by healthy competition, offer party leaders more wealth and comfort. Today the world is the same. The present problems CAN be overcome in relatively simple ways, and almost certainly WILL be overcome eventually. So to give up trying and say "I love big brother" becomes doubly painful.

How I overcame this morning's awful feeling

Well enough whining. This story had a happy ending, at least for now. I resolved that, at an emotional level, I don't want to do my best. I don't want to help the starving. I don't want to tel the truth. I just want to be loved, even if that means selling my soul. But do not worry, as a relativist I know that the universe does not care what I feel or believe. It only cares what I do. (That is, only the things I do will make a difference.)

So I hereby resolve two things:

1. I resolve that I will no longer care if what I do is right or wrong. I will of course carry on with the morals and direction I have. But I will no longer examine it or listen to criticism. You can only afford to care when you are young, and still have time and energy to change direction and start again. When you get older, you need to stick to your beliefs regardless. I have spent a very long time making sure that my beliefs are as true as I can make them. I will now stick to them and no longer entertain the possibility that they could need changing again. That is how progress happens. Politicians who doubt themselves do not make good leaders.
2. I resolve that I will no longer care if I make a difference.
   I will simply focus on my art. My art is my game and my web sites, which happen to contain quite a bit of economics and philosophy. I will no longer care if they are read or if they make a difference. I will only be true to myself. Great leaders do not wonder if they will win. They have blind faith that they will win, or die gloriously in the attempt. The only way to make a difference is to stop worrying about making a difference.
   And when I had thought these words, the fear and despair left me. Now I am at peace.
   I suppose this is a genuine religious experience. When you stop asking the big questions and just accept what you have decided, you feel so good. There is a time for questioning and struggling, and there is a time for just being. I have done enough questioning and struggling for a lifetime. Now I will just be.

Well that's all. I feel better for writing that. A lot better. Thanks for reading.

response to questions

The answers on my websites - mainly this one - took many years to develop. I deliberately took jobs that would allow me access to computers, and give me the free time to think. I spent many hours, months, years, wrestling with knotty problems like consciousness, existence, immigrating, etc., etc. It almost destroyed my marriage and more. Now I am weary. I have no interest in arguing.

You can check it yourself - you can follow the argument from the very beginning to the very end. But I warn you, there is a lot of information packed into a very small space. Whenever someone has questioned me on the answers, the answer to their question has always been within the answers themselves. Assume nothing. Derive all your ideas from first principles. The answers are there. Good luck.

These answers are not what people expect, so they will appear wrong, or at least raise many questions. To answer those questions I would have to patiently lead the questioner through every stage that led t that conclusion. I would have to understand the questioner's own position and expect much patience from them. I just don't have the energy or time for that. Sorry.

It may sound arrogant to be convinced that my ideas are right, without being ready to argue over them. But I have good reasons to believe they are right, or at least more right than any other system. Here are the reasons.

1. I spent the best half of my life on these things, thinking of little else. Everything else came second to these things for twenty five years. How many people can say that?
2. I had no preconceived notions, and no reason (other than logic) to follow any particular path. I have no reputation to defend, I am not making any money from these things. How many professors or academics can say that?
3. I was willing to change when I was wrong. For the first thirty four years of my life I thought that Mormonism was part of the answer, or at least not opposed to the truth. I served as a full time missionary, I ran my local branch of the church, I published a book and a thousand page apologetics web site, I married a true believer and raised my family in the church. Then I came to the conclusion that the church was false. I left the church, at great personal cost. I am not doing this for my own benefit, or to prove some prejudice. I am genuinely interested in truth.
4. My philosophy, from start to finish, is presented plainly for all to see. No long books, no gaps, just plain answers derived from first principles. How many other people can say that?
5. This has been tested and retested on the Internet, the fastest source of information in the history of the world. Other generations had smarter thinkers who searched for longer, but they did not have this unfair advantage.

After a quarter century of intense searching (age 12 to 37), I have more reason than anyone I have ever known or heard of, to say plainly and boldly, these things are true. Or rather, more likely to be true than any other system of answers you will ever find. That is all. Hopefully as this Blog develops, I will be able to give examples that will persuade people. if not, at least I did my best.

no good deed goes unpunished

What me, bitter? I hope not.

When as a child I set out to find answers, I thought that any answers would be welcomed with open arms. I thought I would be a hero. I thought that, even if others did not understand or accept all the details, they would praise and respect someone who had set his sights so high. In hindsight, I was rather foolish.

If a person finds better answers, they will be different from what people are believing or doing already. If the answers are dramatically or radically different, they will be difficult to understand. If they were obvious, people would have accepted them long ago.

In other words, if you find radically better answers, you are in effect, saying to everyone else "you are wrong!" and if you try to explain why, they will not understand. Do you think this will make you popular?

But it gets worse. Answers are not easy to find. they require a great deal of time and effort. I sweated blood (metaphorically) over some of these issues. Progress on some ideas took years. I was thinking about these when my peers were thinking about - and investing in - money and sex. In other words, I took time away from my career and my relationships. So, from an outsider's point of view, I now have LESS to offer. Less money, fewer social skills, less fun, less of what everyone else thinks is desirable.

It is a strange irony. If you find much better answers, you become a disappointment - even an enemy - to the ones you are trying to help. If you sacrifice your time and effort to make big improvements, you are punished severely. Nobody does this deliberately. It is just a natural result of being different.

Please remember that this is a general principle that applies to ANYTHING new and very different. And it is often a good principle because most new ideas will tend to be wrong. But my point is that great good is punished as much as if it were great evil. Small improvements have a better chance of success, but large improvements? Be prepared for great opposition from those you want to help.

It's a funny old world.

why these answers are better

What me, arrogant? Vain? If you say so. :)

I spent half my life looking for answers. Since the advent of the Internet, I have looked long and hard for anyone who has answers. Is that such an unusual thing? Apparently it is. I have not found a single web site or book or philosophy or religion or political party that has answers without gaps. They all have large gaps (see previous post).

So I found my own answers. They are summarized in www.AnswersAnswers.com - look especially for the link at the side of the page. The main site gives a simple way to save the world, the side link provides the philosophical foundation. My answers are better than any others because my answers have no gaps. They can be derived from first principles. If we start with zero assumptions, we can progress to 'why is there something rather than nothing,' and 'why is logic the only useful system' through to evolution, to the nature of property, to land rent, and everything else.

I know that my answers can be improved. There are many things I would tweak if I had the time. The next post here will address some objections. But mine are the only answers without major gaps. So on this planet at least, they are the only choice. They are the only game in town.

news

Blogs are supposed to be about news. Eventually I will get around to commenting on the news. But news is a funny thing. It is all about gaps (see previous post). News revolves around anecdotes, faith, and pragmatism. When is the last time a news item dealt rationally with the big issues? What a news item calls a "big" issue - like war, famine, or love - is usually a relatively small issue. That is, these things are small in relation to the bigger items. If we can't get the bigger items right, then we are just wasting out time on the small ones.

In this Blog I want to get the assumptions right, and THEN move on to talk about news items.

If we really don't know what we are doing, why do we think we do? The simple answer is evolution. Like ants in an ant hill, we are all busy doing things that seem very important to us at the time. But we really don't know why in any absolute sense. Just as with ants, the real motor driving us is evolution. We behave this way because last time it seemed to work. But we don't know why.

At this point it is tempting to link to alternative news sources. There are web sites that give news from a different perspective. But these things can be very depressing. And arguing about these things can take up all your free time. I don't like being depressed, and I don't like having no time. I prefer to find answers to my problems. So we'll stick to the big issues, then move on to the news items later. Is that OK with you? Thanks.

gaps in our thinking

I spent many years looking for answers, and this is what I found: Many religions and philosophies and political parties claim to have answers. But they all have big gaps. Here are the big three gaps:

• Faith. "It just is." Or "I feel that it is true."
• Anecdotes. You rely on some story to illustrate your point, but that story does not really prove anything - somebody else could see it differently.
• Pragmatism - we leave the very big questions alone because "nobody knows" or "that is the basis of our society - challenging that would cause too many problems."

The gaps are usually in big issues like "is there a God?" or "who has a right to own this land?" or "who are the good guys here?" And guess what - when we are ignorant, we assume that WE are the good guys, God is on OUR side, WE deserve the land, etc.

This is ironic. We like to believe that we are moral and rational. And in small things we are. But our little pockets of morality and rationality are all in the service of vast oceans of ignorance and self-interest.

Does your own world view rely on any of these things? I bet it does. In other posts I will give some examples.

some history

When I was very young, I was very happy. I had great parents, the world seemed like a wonderful place, and I thought I could do anything. (All those things are still true, but they do not tell the whole story.) At the age of 9 I became aware that people were starving in the world. And there are wars and torture and all kinds of other injustice. I decided to devote my life to doing whatever I could to change this. Maybe I can't make a big difference, but I can make some difference. I believe that we should all try to do the most good we can.

By the age of 12 I realized that most people think they already have the answers, and that they are already doing everything they can. Yet their answers oppose and contradict each other. So I decided, at age 12, to spend my life trying to find the real best answers. Then the next generation would be able to make use of them. Ah, I was so naive. I still am.

Fast forward. I am now 36 (37 in a couple of weeks). When other people were concentrating on their careers and relationships, I was concentrating on ideas and finding answers. I have now found answers that satisfy me. So what do I do? Spend the rest of my life promoting them? Spend the rest of my life arguing with others who disagree? Spend the rest of my life concentrating on making money and improving my personal relationships - areas I have greatly neglected? I will leave my plans for another day, but for now a Blog seems like a good idea. Arguing takes too long, and relationships rely on understanding. Hopefully a Blog will let me say what I want, and maybe others will understand me, and all in just a few minutes a day. Hey, it's worth a try.

my first post

Several people have said I should start a blog. Well, OK, two people. I would rather read one written by someone else, but nobody talks about the stuff that matters to me, so here we are.

This blog is called 'how to save the world.' The answer is land rent. If you want logical answers to life's other big questions, click here. There, that was easy, wasn't it? :) If you want something more light hearted, try my Zak McKracken site. And if you want to see where I live (or at least nearby), here is a web site I built for my sister's croft.

Well that's the introduction over with... :)