You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
*exhales slowly*… Riiiiiiiiight
The most devastating critique of expanded government economic power—whether advanced by the woke left or the postliberal right—rests not on the familiar warning that today’s weapon will be turned against us tomorrow, but on a deeper and more fundamental truth: government is constitutionally incapable of generating sustained abundance because it is always and everywhere a third-person economic actor. James Lindsay, building on Milton Friedman and Bob McEwen, distinguishes three categories of economic decision-making. First-person transactions occur when individuals spend their own money on their own needs; second-person transactions arise when either the money or the consumption belongs to someone else; third-person transactions, the exclusive domain of government, occur when an agent spends other people’s money on still other people’s needs. This final category produces a catastrophic double detachment from both cost and quality, rendering genuine wealth creation impossible no matter how noble the intention.
In first-person economics, the actor faces unrelenting pressure to balance cost against quality, efficiency against adequacy, and innovation against economy. Because the problem is his own and the resources are his own, he has every incentive to discover superior solutions and—under private property and profit—to scale those solutions for strangers whose problems he may not personally care about. The profit motive performs the miraculous feat of aligning naked self-interest with the systematic solving of dispersed human problems. Markets thus become discovery machines that generate exactly the surpluses society demands—no more, no less—while constantly punishing waste and rewarding improvement. Abundance emerges not from altruism but from an incentive structure that makes indifference compatible with service.
Government, by contrast, enters every economic arena as a pure third-person participant. Taxpayer funds are not its own, the services or goods it procures are not for its own consumption, and the bureaucrats or politicians who allocate resources face no personal bankruptcy for failure nor personal enrichment for success. Policy directives may demand “efficiency” or “innovation,” but these remain precatory slogans without the lash of loss or the lure of gain. The result is systemic waste, misallocation, and eventual stagnation. Historical episodes of apparent state-led productivity—Soviet industrialisation, Nazi rearmament, contemporary Chinese growth—prove the rule: they rely on forced mobilisation, suppressed consumption, and often plunder, and they collapse once the coercive surplus is exhausted and the misallocations compound.¹
The Chinese case, far from refuting the argument, illustrates its prescience. Beijing’s hybrid system permits profit only after political quotas are met and party loyalty is demonstrated. The resulting economy can indeed produce impressive physical output, yet it does so at the cost of collapsing total-factor productivity, ghost cities, and a property sector larger than the 1929 American bubble. Private entrepreneurs now husband cash and flee rather than invest, precisely because the third-person political actor can expropriate gains at will. What appears as hyperproductivity is in reality a sugar rush of debt and coercion, already giving way to the predictable hangover of a middle-income trap.²
The American founders understood that liberty and prosperity require strict limits on state economic power not merely to prevent tyranny but to preserve the only known incentive structure capable of producing general abundance. Proposals from Zohran Mkwana’s “no problem too small for government” socialism to JD Vance’s calls for state-directed “right-wing ends” share the same fatal flaw: they seek to achieve through third-person coercion what only first-person discovery coordinated by profit and price can deliver.³ Until the right grasps that government cannot be made to possess the correct incentives—any more than a square can be made circular—the allure of “using the state for our side” will continue to seduce and ultimately impoverish. True prosperity demands not a more muscular manager of the economy but the humbling recognition that no such manager can ever exist.
Endnotes
- Historical state-led cases: China, the USSR, and Nazi Germany achieved output spikes through coercion and consumption suppression, not sustainable productivity; each encountered severe misallocation and stagnation once coercive inputs were exhausted.
- China’s slowdown: China’s growth was driven by market liberalization (1978–2010) and reversed when political control tightened; falling TFP, capital flight, and overbuilding confirm the limits of state-led productivity.
- Incentive failure is structural: No ideological orientation can turn a bureaucracy into a profit-and-loss–disciplined discovery process; industrial policy without market discipline becomes third-person misallocation.
Glossary
First-person transaction: A situation where individuals spend their own money on their own needs.
Second-person transaction: A transaction where either the money or the consumption belongs to someone else.
Third-person transaction: When an agent (e.g., government) spends other people’s money on other people’s needs, lacking direct incentives for efficiency or quality.
Total-factor productivity (TFP): A measure of how efficiently an economy turns labor and capital into output.
Middle-income trap: When a developing country’s growth stalls after reaching middle-income status due to declining productivity and misallocation.
References
Foundational Economics & Productivity
- Solow, Robert. “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function.” Review of Economics and Statistics (1957).
https://doi.org/10.2307/1926047 - Baumol, William. The Cost Disease: Why Computers Get Cheaper and Health Care Doesn’t. Yale University Press (2012).
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300179286/the-cost-disease/ - Gordon, Robert. The Rise and Fall of American Growth. Princeton University Press (2016).
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691147727/the-rise-and-fall-of-american-growth
State Capacity, Bureaucracy, and Incentives
- Tullock, Gordon. The Politics of Bureaucracy. Public Affairs Press (1965).
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/tullock-bureaucracy - Niskanen, William. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Aldine-Atherton (1971).
https://www.cato.org/books/bureaucracy-representative-government - Hayek, F.A. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” American Economic Review (1945).
https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html
Industrial Policy & Development Economics
- Rodrik, Dani. “Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century.” Harvard University (2004).
https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/files/dani-rodrik/files/industrial-policy-twenty-first-century.pdf - Amsden, Alice. Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. Oxford University Press (1989).
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/asias-next-giant-9780195076035 - Wade, Robert. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization. Princeton University Press (2003).
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691117294/governing-the-market
China’s Growth and Slowdown
- Brandt, Loren; Van Biesebroeck, Johannes; Zhang, Yifan. “Creative Accounting or Creative Destruction? Firm-Level Productivity Growth in Chinese Manufacturing.” Journal of Development Economics (2012).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.02.001 - Pritchett, Lant & Summers, Lawrence. “Asiaphoria Meets Regression to the Mean.” NBER Working Paper No. 20573 (2014).
https://www.nber.org/papers/w20573
Nordic Economies & Welfare States
- Bergh, Andreas & Henrekson, Magnus. Government Size and Implications for Economic Growth. AEI Press (2011).
https://www.aei.org/research-products/book/government-size-and-implications-for-economic-growth/ - OECD Data on Nordic Economies.
https://data.oecd.org/
Market Failure, Government Failure, Incentives
- Coase, Ronald. “The Problem of Social Cost.” Journal of Law and Economics (1960).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/724810 - Kirzner, Israel. Competition and Entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press (1973).
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo5972460.html
Technology, Innovation & Productivity Slowdown
- Bloom, Nicholas et al. “Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?” American Economic Review (2020).
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180338
Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto in A major, K.622 (1791), his final instrumental work, is the defining masterpiece of the clarinet repertoire.
First movement (Allegro, A major, sonata form)
Opens with a genial, singing orchestral theme in A major that radiates autumnal warmth. The solo clarinet enters with effortless lyricism, spinning long-breathed melodies of almost vocal purity. The development explores minor-key shadows without ever losing poise; the cadenza (Mozart left none, so Stadler’s or modern ones are used) is usually tender rather than virtuosic. Ends in serene sunshine.
Second movement (Adagio, D major, ternary form)
One of Mozart’s most transcendent slow movements: a single, unbroken melodic arch of heartbreaking simplicity over muted strings and gentle pulsation. The clarinet’s chalumeau register glows with ineffable calm; many consider this 5–6 minutes the emotional peak of the entire concerto.
Third movement (Rondo: Allegro, A major)
A sparkling, playful rondo that repeatedly returns to a skipping, hunt-inspired refrain. Five episodes allow the clarinet dazzling runs, leaps, and witty dialogues with the orchestra. The mood is buoyant, almost operatic (echoes of Papageno), and the work dances to a joyful close.
Overall character: intimate, radiantly melodic, poised between happiness and poignant farewell—Mozart at his most humane and technically refined, written for his friend Anton Stadler and the extended-range basset clarinet (modern performances usually on standard A clarinet with downward transpositions).
The rapid proliferation of gender ideology over the past decade—especially the surge of adolescent-onset gender dysphoria—stands as one of the clearest examples of social contagion in modern Western societies. A clinical framework once reserved for a very small number of adults with persistent, childhood-onset dysphoria was transformed into a cultural mandate through the convergence of three forces: institutional capture, algorithm-driven identity formation, and activist-driven medical practice.
Between 2015 and the early 2020s, referrals for gender services exploded—driven overwhelmingly by teenage girls with no prior history of dysphoria. Peer-group clustering, sudden identity shifts following intense online exposure, and the complete inversion of historic sex ratios all point to a socially transmitted phenomenon rather than a newly discovered biological one. Yet under the “affirmation” model, minors were placed on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and permanent surgeries despite limited evidence, poorly understood risks, and a professional culture that increasingly discouraged clinical skepticism.
The hardest obstacle to unwind, however, will not be the institutions that enabled this shift. Policies can change, clinics can be restructured, and professional bodies can revise guidelines—as they already have across parts of Europe. The most immovable barrier will be parents. Many acted from compassion, social pressure, or a sincere desire to be “supportive,” but they now face an excruciating truth: they approved irreversible medical interventions on psychologically vulnerable teenagers during a developmental window historically marked by transient distress, identity confusion, and social sensitivity.
Double mastectomies on minors, lifetime fertility loss, and surgeries with complication rates exceeding anything considered acceptable elsewhere in medicine are not abstract debates. They are lived consequences. For parents, acknowledging error would require confronting a moral reality few can bear: that they were active participants in harming their own child. The human mind is built to avoid that revelation at all costs.
As a result, the detransition wave—real, growing, and increasingly documented—will face its fiercest resistance not from clinics or activists, but from within families. Parents will cling to the “lifesaving care” narrative long after the institutions that encouraged it have quietly retreated. They will reinterpret events to preserve psychic stability, even if doing so deepens the suffering of the child who must now live with the consequences.
Reversing the damage will require more than policy reform or legal accountability. It will require a public reckoning with the psychological mechanisms of self-deception, moral injury, and sunk-cost loyalty that allowed an entire society to medicate and operate on distressed adolescents in the name of affirmation. That reckoning—private, painful, and unavoidable—is the hardest part still to come.
References
-
The Cass Review – Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (Interim Report) — NHS-commissioned review (Feb 2022) by Dr. Hilary Cass. Sex Matters
-
The Cass Review: Final Report (April 2024) — Hilary Cass’s full independent review. BASW+1
-
NHS England: Public Consultation Analysis & Summary – Interim Clinical Policy on Puberty-Suppressing Hormones (Jan 2024) — analysis of feedback on proposed policy changes. NHS England
-
Commission on Human Medicines (UK) Report – Proposed Restriction on GnRH Agonists for Under-18s — recommendation to restrict puberty blockers. GOV.UK
-
Equality & Health Inequalities Impact Assessment (EHIA), NHS England — assessment of health-inequality risks from the policy change on puberty blockers. GOV.UK+1
-
Karolinska Institutet Systematic Review on Hormonal Treatment in Youths (<18) — finds that GnRHa treatment should be considered experimental due to lack of long-term data. Karolinska Institutet News
-
Karolinska Hospital Policy Statement (April 2021) — stops prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors under 16 except in research settings. Feminist Legal Clinic
In a culture that mistakes comfort for flourishing and validation for character, Stoicism returns us to a harder and older truth: the sole good is virtue. Everything else—wealth, health, reputation, even life itself—is ultimately indifferent.
The Stoics inherited from Socrates and Plato the four cardinal virtues and declared them jointly sufficient for eudaimonia (the Greek term for the only life genuinely worth living). They are:
1. Wisdom (phronēsis)
The knowledge of what is truly good, bad, and neither.
Wisdom is not cleverness or data accumulation—it is the steady ability to judge correctly in concrete circumstances. Without wisdom, every other virtue collapses into blind habit, impulsiveness, or self-deception.
2. Courage (andreia)
Not the absence of fear but the disciplined refusal to let fear govern action.
Stoic courage shows itself in the quiet endurance of chronic pain, in speaking truth to power, in confronting injustice, and in facing death without hysteria or despair.
3. Justice (dikaiosynē)
The social virtue par excellence: giving every person what is owed—including those we dislike.
Justice expresses itself as honesty, fairness, kindness, and civic responsibility. A life without justice is predatory even when outwardly respectable.
4. Temperance (sōphrosynē)
Mastery of appetite and impulse.
Temperance is the power to say “this is enough” when desire—whether for food, sex, status, stimulation, or outrage—demands more. Without temperance, genuine freedom is impossible.
Why These Four Alone Matter
The Stoics argued, and lived, a radical proposition: virtue is both necessary and sufficient for the good life. External goods can be stripped away in an afternoon—Zeno’s fortune confiscated in Cyprus, Seneca and Epictetus exiled by Rome, Marcus Aurelius’s children taken by disease—yet none of these losses corrupted their character.
Their serenity, dignity, and usefulness endured because their excellence depended on nothing outside their prohairesis, their moral and rational faculty.
In this sense, Stoicism is not ancient self-help but a philosophical engineering of the soul.
Modern Evidence Confirms the Ancient Claim
Long-term psychological research repeatedly finds that the best predictors of life satisfaction, longevity, and emotional stability are not wealth, fame, or intelligence but traits that map directly onto the Stoic virtues:
- Conscientious self-control → temperance
- Warm, dependable relationships → justice
- Resilience under stress → courage
- Reflective, accurate judgment → wisdom
The Grant Study, the Terman cohort, and the Harvard Study of Adult Development all converge on a simple conclusion: character, not circumstance, is the foundation of lasting well-being.
How to Train the Virtues Today
You don’t “add” virtue like a supplement. You train it the way an athlete trains muscle: through deliberate, repeated action under resistance.
Wisdom
- Keep a decision journal.
- Each night ask: “Where did I misjudge good and bad today?”
- Test impressions against reason, not emotion.
Courage
- Practice voluntary discomfort: public speaking, difficult conversations.
- Fear shrinks when approached, not avoided.
Justice
- Use the dichotomy of roles. In every interaction ask: “What does my role as human being, citizen, parent, or colleague require?”
- Then do it, regardless of mood.
Temperance
- Set bright-line rules: no phone in the first hour of the day, one plate of food, no gossip.
- Desire obeys precedent.
Progress in Stoicism is measured not by emotional uplift but by this single question:
“Would I act the same way if no one ever found out and the outcome were guaranteed to be unpleasant?”
Virtue is revealed in what you do when excellence is costly.
Master these four virtues and you will lack nothing essential. Neglect them, and no wealth, therapy, or acclaim will save you from living a hollow life. This is not ancient opinion. It is observable, repeatable fact.
References
- George E. Vaillant, Triumphs of Experience: The Men of the Harvard Grant Study (Harvard University Press, 2012).
- Lewis Terman et al., Genetic Studies of Genius (Stanford University Press, 1925–1959).
- Robert Waldinger & Marc Schulz, The Good Life: Lessons from the World’s Longest Scientific Study of Happiness (Simon & Schuster, 2023).
- Julia Annas, The Morality of Happiness (Oxford University Press, 1993) — for classical virtue ethics and Stoic moral psychology.
- A.A. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy (University of California Press, 1986).
- Massimo Pigliucci, How to Be a Stoic (Basic Books, 2017) — modern interpretation and practice.
Glossary of Key Terms
Eudaimonia — A flourishing or fully realized human life; more than happiness, closer to “living excellently.”
Phronēsis — Practical wisdom; the ability to judge rightly.
Andreia — Courage; the discipline of confronting fear and difficulty.
Dikaiosynē — Justice; moral and social responsibility toward others.
Sōphrosynē — Temperance; self-mastery and moderation.
Prohairesis — The rational, moral faculty that governs choice and intention in Stoic psychology.
Indifferents — External conditions (health, wealth, status) that are neither good nor bad in themselves.
Alberta’s Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, marks one of the most significant free-expression protections introduced in Canada in a generation. In a political climate where professional regulators increasingly police personal beliefs, Alberta has drawn a constitutional line: no regulator has the right to punish lawful off-duty expression or enforce ideological conformity.
For a country grappling with expanding limits on acceptable speech, Bill 13 is a clear statement that cognitive liberty still matters — and must be defended.
Protecting the Mind from Institutional Overreach
The bill’s core principle is simple:
regulated professionals — doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, engineers — do not surrender their freedom of thought or expression when they obtain a license.
Bill 13 therefore prohibits regulatory bodies from disciplining professionals for their lawful off-duty expressive conduct. The definition is broad by design:
any communication or symbolic act that expresses meaning is protected, unless it involves real harm such as violence, criminal acts, abuse of professional power, or sexual misconduct.
This is precisely the line a free society should defend. Regulators must ensure competence — not enforce an ideological worldview.
The “Peterson Law”: A Necessary Rebalance
Bill 13 responds directly to cases like that of Jordan Peterson, whose regulator attempted to discipline him for personal political commentary made outside his clinical practice. Whatever one thinks of Peterson, the precedent was dangerous: it implied that professionals serve at the pleasure of ideological censors.
Bill 13 rejects this entirely.
It enshrines a foundational principle:
Your license does not give the state ownership of your mind.
In a country where social and professional pressures increasingly enforce narrow orthodoxies, this is an overdue correction.
Ending Ideological Compulsion in Professional Licensing
The bill also prohibits mandatory ideological training unless it directly relates to professional competence or ethics. This includes DEI, unconscious-bias modules, or cultural-competency courses whose content extends beyond verifiable job requirements.
This is not a rejection of diversity or ethics. It is a rejection of the assumption that the state can compel belief — or force professionals to internalize political frameworks as a condition of employment.
Canada has drifted toward a model where ideological education is treated as neutral truth. Bill 13 restores the older liberal idea:
the state regulates conduct, not thought.
Reaffirming Charter Principles the Rest of Canada Left Behind
Bill 13 strengthens the role of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Alberta’s Bill of Rights in appeals. Regulators must now justify any intrusion on expression using a correctness standard, not deferential rubber-stamping.
In effect, Alberta is telling professional bodies:
If you are going to infringe expression, you must prove it is justified — and most ideological policing won’t survive that scrutiny.
This is how constitutional societies are supposed to operate.
A Model for a Canada That Has Lost Confidence in Its Own Freedoms
Critics warn of dangers. But these warnings always elide the key truth:
Bill 13 does not protect threats, criminality, hate-motivated harassment, or abuse of professional power.
It protects speech — not harm.
It protects thought — not misconduct.
It protects dissent — not danger.
And this is urgently needed. Across Canada, cognitive liberty is narrowing. Professionals face whispered threats, social pressure, licensing consequences, reputational ruin, and ideological gatekeeping for expressing legitimate political or social views. The boundary between professional standards and ideological enforcement has blurred.
Bill 13 restores that boundary with clarity and force.
Verdict: Alberta Is Right — and Other Provinces Should Follow
Alberta’s bill is a principled pushback against a creeping culture of compelled ideology. It marks a return to classical liberalism, where the right to think and speak freely is not contingent on political fashion.
By affirming that professionals retain sovereignty over their own minds, Bill 13 sets a vital precedent for the rest of Canada.
At a time when our freedoms feel increasingly conditional, Alberta has chosen to defend them.
For those who still believe in free speech, open debate, and the inviolability of conscience should celebrate when this bill is passed.
The Stoics taught that excess corrupts both the soul and the body politic. Seneca warned that chasing boundless expansion courts ruin — true prosperity lies not in defiance of limits, but in living in accordance with nature’s measure. Marcus Aurelius similarly counseled restraint, urging us to act within the bounds of reason and accept the limits placed upon us. Applied to governance, this means a nation — like an individual — must assess its capacities before inviting more mouths to the table.
Canada’s recent immigration trajectory betrayed this principle. In 2023, the country added more than 1.27 million people — an annual growth rate of roughly 3.2 percent, driven overwhelmingly by international migration. (Statistics Canada) Over just a few years, the population climbed from under 39 million to over 41 million.
For years, permanent-resident targets hovered near 500,000, and temporary resident classes — students, workers, etc. — swelled. By 2025, however, disturbing strains were showing: housing shortages, rent and price inflation, pressure on health services, and signs of wage stress.
These were not speculative risks. Empirical analyses from bodies such as the Bank of Canada and CMHC correlate rapid population inflows with housing-market pressure. Public opinion followed suit. By late 2025, polling indicated that nearly two-thirds of Canadians considered even the then-reduced target for permanent residents (395,000) too high; roughly half held consistently negative views on immigration, not out of xenophobia, but from perceived stress on infrastructure and housing.
Recognizing this, Ottawa has begun to recalibrate. In its 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan, released publicly, the government committed to 395,000 permanent residents in 2025, then reducing to 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027. (Canada) Even more significantly, temporary resident targets dropped: from 673,650 new TRs in 2025 to 516,600 in 2026, with further moderation planned. (Canada)
The demographic effects are already materializing. As of mid-2025, Canada’s estimated population growth slowed to 0.9 percent year-over-year, according to RBC Economics, with non-permanent residents making up a smaller share. (RBC) This slowdown itself validates the Stoic critique of overreach — a moment of reckoning for policy driven by expansion rather than equilibrium.
This retreat is welcome, but it remains reactive. From a Stoic perspective, reactive virtue is still virtue, but prudence demands more: a wisdom that designs policy proactively, not merely corrects after crisis. A Stoic polity would have matched immigration flows to real, measurable capacity long ago — gauging housing pipelines, healthcare strain, wage effects, and social cohesion.
Immigration in moderation enriches: it brings talent, innovation, and human flourishing. But unmoored from institutional capacity, it sows fragility, inequality, and resentment.
Going forward, Canada needs to institutionalize sophrosyne — the classical virtue of temperance and self-mastery. Targets should be set not by political fantasy or corporate lobbying, but by clear metrics: housing completions, per-capita infrastructure strain, healthcare wait-lists, and social stability.
The recent dialing back is a start. But true Stoic governance demands that moderation becomes a structural norm, not just a temporary correction. Only then can the polity live in accord with nature — virtuous, resilient, and enduring.
References
- Government of Canada, 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan. Permanent resident targets: 395,000 (2025), 380,000 (2026), 365,000 (2027). (Canada)
- Canada.ca, Government of Canada reduces immigration. Temporary resident reductions, projected decline in temporary population by 445,901 in 2025. (Canada)
- RBC Economics, Canada’s population growth slows… — mid-2025 year-over-year growth of 0.9%, share of non-permanent residents falling. (RBC)
- Statistics Canada, Population estimates, Q4 2024. International migration accounted for 98.5% of growth in Q4 2024. (Statistics Canada)
- CIC News, 2026-2028 Immigration Levels Plan will include new measures… — TR targets for 2026: 385,000 quoted, among other reductions. (CIC News)
- CIBC Thought Leadership, Population-growth projections… — analysis of visa expiry, outflows, and the challenge of non-permanent resident accounting. (cms.thoughtleadership.cibc.com)
Glossary of Key Terms
| Term | Meaning / Explanation |
|---|---|
| Sophrosyne | A classical Greek virtue (especially important to Stoics): moderation, temperance, self-control, and harmony with nature. In this context, it means setting immigration policy in proportion to real capacity. |
| Non-Permanent Resident (NPR) | Individuals in Canada on temporary visas: students, temporary foreign workers, etc. Not permanent residents or citizens. |
| Permanent Resident (PR) | Someone who has been granted permanent residency in Canada: not a citizen yet, but has the right to live and work permanently. |
| Levels Plan / Immigration Levels Plan | The Canadian government’s multi-year plan setting targets for new permanent and temporary immigrant admissions. |
| Absorptive Capacity | The realistic capacity of a country (or region) to accommodate newcomers without undue strain: infrastructure, housing, healthcare, labour market, social services. |
| Reactive Virtue vs. Proactive Wisdom | In Stoic terms: responding wisely after the fact (reactive) is good, but better is anticipating and designing policy with foresight (proactive). |
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…