PDA

View Full Version : Re-Brand Illegal Immigration




idiom
06-18-2012, 03:59 PM
I just posted this over in the Campaign Suggestion box, which I imagine to be largely defunct now.

So for everyone else:

Immigrants should not be referred to as 'illegal', this implies that a simple law change would make everything better and no longer implies injustice. Huge numbers of things people do everyday, especially in this movement are 'illegal'.

Immigrants without valid visas should be referred to "Queue-Jumpers" or "Over-stayers". These are fresh and imply a strong sense of injustice.

LibForestPaul
06-18-2012, 08:33 PM
-1 overstayer
+1 qjumpers - not bad...

ganderif
06-18-2012, 09:48 PM
Yes on Queue Jumpers

FreedomRings
06-18-2012, 10:37 PM
Queue Jumpers

+1

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-18-2012, 10:42 PM
'Re-brand' Immigration as a property issue to the polity. They've violated no one's rights & just because you want to tell other property owners how and to whom to dispose their property to is different than our current paradigm of tyranny how? The moral and libertarian position is open-State borders as long as the Government is in possession of property bordering adjacent countries.

There is nothing that says visitation, or employment privileges one to voting. So, just like to address that straw-man before someone brings it up, as well as open-State borders does not cede any jurisdiction to any supra-national body. Does Virginia and Maryland having open borders vis a vis each other bind either Virginia to Maryland's laws, vice versa, or conversely to the UN? No, it doesn't.

Let property owners of justly acquired title dispose of their own property how they choose, and to trade title to whom they choose. Thanks.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-18-2012, 10:54 PM
I just posted this over in the Campaign Suggestion box, which I imagine to be largely defunct now.

So for everyone else:

Immigrants should not be referred to as 'illegal', this implies that a simple law change would make everything better and no longer implies injustice. Huge numbers of things people do everyday, especially in this movement are 'illegal'.

Immigrants without valid visas should be referred to "Queue-Jumpers" or "Over-stayers". These are fresh and imply a strong sense of injustice.

What movement? I ask this question because there can only be one movement and, as it already exists, it doesn't have to be created. This movement is called the American movement. In the past, such times involved a return to reverring our original Founders, and a return to the natural law they declared sovereign over all the other prior laws of legal precedence with this being our American Civil Purpose.

thoughtomator
06-18-2012, 10:58 PM
I call them "colonists"

historically that is a neutral and accurate term

and it begs the question whether we as Americans care to let happen to ourselves what happened to the people who were here before the Europeans arrived.

adding definition of 'colony' from the dictionary:

"A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country."

ProIndividual
06-18-2012, 11:21 PM
The only injustice is trampling individual natural rights like free movement for the "good of the collective" (the state).

One simple law should fix this for border hawks...and for non-border hawks, libertarian philosophy clearly requires no law to change to encourage "illegal" immigration (market determined, but state impeded, immigration).

The very law that fixes this problem, and a poll about it, here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381015-Immigration-Policy-Poll-Law-to-Prevent-Immigrants-from-Getting-Benefits-for-X-Years

thoughtomator
06-18-2012, 11:25 PM
I'm getting a bit tired of your anti-sovereignty crusade and the pejorative "border hawk" for anyone who takes the fundamental prerequisite for liberty seriously.

ProIndividual
06-18-2012, 11:48 PM
I'm getting a bit tired of your anti-sovereignty crusade and the pejorative "border hawk" for anyone who takes the fundamental prerequisite for liberty seriously.

You mean 'anti-collective sovereignty campaign'...as I follow libertarian philosophy which predicates itself on self-ownership, aka individual sovereignty.

Your collective (the state) only gets ANY legitimate sovereignty from our INDIVIDUAL consent to relinquish, of our own free will INDIVIDUALLY (not in elections), our individual sovereignty. Any sovereignty claimed that is not voluntarily relinquished individually is illegitimate in libertarian philosophy.

It's not my fault you advocate collectivist statism above individual natural rights (also called "inalienable" or "unalienable" rights; those are "rights not subject to border or statute" - hence "in-" and "un-" are negation prefixes of "alien", which means "foreign, subject to border and statute"). That's your failing, not mine. You have an ethical issue there to clear up. We clearly do not get our rights from the state...they are ours by virtue of our humanity (or via a Creator, if that's your viewpoint). Where you live or are born have no bearing on what rights you have...only what rights are aggressed against by the state. Those aggressions are known as tyranny.

So I don't care what you're getting tired of, as I've been tired of statism and other forms of collectivism a very long time.

And if you don't like the phrase border hawk, don't be hawkish on the borders out of xenophobia, economic misunderstanding of free markets, or culture war nonsense. You take it as a pejorative, but what more accurately describes the anti-free market, anti-libertarian position?

"Border nationalist"? "Border collectivist"? "Anti-individual sovereignty advocate"? "Xenophobe"? "Culture warrior"? "Person who misunderstands free market economics"?

Those are much worse names, in my opinion (albeit accurate in a case by case basis). Those names are also too specific, when "border hawk" covers them all without implicating the person to any one motivation in particular.

Anyone who takes liberty seriously reads a lot on the subject of free market economics and libertarian philosophy, and therefore is not a border hawk (or at least takes the one law in the poll I linked to, and sees it as a way to support a libertarian border policy).

thoughtomator
06-18-2012, 11:55 PM
You are not a libertarian or you would understand sovereignty. You are an anarchist. According to your philosophy, "We the People..." is collectivist.

No thanks. Take your garbage philosophy of savagery somewhere where it belongs, which is not here.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-19-2012, 12:09 AM
You are not a libertarian or you would understand sovereignty. You are an anarchist. According to your philosophy, "We the People..." is collectivist.

No thanks. Take your garbage philosophy of savagery somewhere where it belongs, which is not here.

Well, I guess no State has any sovereignty, considering they have open borders vis a vis each other. Not sure anyone is advocating for the cessation of jurisdiction (as bad as the American legal regime concerns liberty, Mexico is even worse, but I'd be elated for mass micro-secession..), but open-borders (e.g. free movement of people and goods) principally up to private property owners.

It seems you do not understand either sovereignty or property rights. If you think you have the authority to tell me who I can trade my title to or who I can hire you're on the wrong site - I recommend the CPUSA or perhaps Free Republic or something.

ProIndividual
06-19-2012, 12:16 AM
You are not a libertarian or you would understand sovereignty. You are an anarchist. According to your philosophy, "We the People..." is collectivist.

No thanks. Take your garbage philosophy of savagery somewhere where it belongs, which is not here.

You obviously haven't read much about the philosophy to say what I said previously is not in the pervue of libertarian philosophy, and to say I'm not a libertarian. I hate to tell you, but libertarians are both minarchists and anarchists, and the term "libertarian" was invented by anarchists originally in order to publish anarchist publications under another word when a STATE outlawed any publications using that term.

I suppose Tom woods has no place in libertarianism? Robert Murphy? Lew Rockwell? Murray Rothbard? How about David Friedman and Patri Friedman (Milton Friedman's son and grandson)? How about Roderick T. Long? How about Walter Block?

They're all anarchist libertarians...get over it already. Ron Paul hangs with these guys, endorses their books, and calls them friends. His Super PAC was run by one of them.

Who do you think you are redefining libertarianism? LOL.

BTW, classical liberals wrote "We the People" and gave us the nation-state we currenly reside in, not libertarians. Two separate (albeit similar) philosophies.

This is "he's an anarchist" ad hominem is all some folks have when they have no logical debate to make via evidence.

thoughtomator
06-19-2012, 12:28 AM
Well, I guess no State has any sovereignty, considering they have open borders vis a vis each other.

State sovereignty is limited sovereignty, not the absolute sovereignty of a nation.


It seems you do not understand either sovereignty or property rights. If you think you have the authority to tell me who I can trade my title to or who I can hire you're on the wrong site - I recommend the CPUSA or perhaps Free Republic or something.

Based on that comment, I don't think you know what sovereignty is at all. Sovereignty is not property rights and not only does not conflict with property rights, but property rights cannot exist without sovereignty.

thoughtomator
06-19-2012, 12:39 AM
Who do you think you are redefining libertarianism? LOL.

BTW, classical liberals wrote "We the People" and gave us the nation-state we currenly reside in, not libertarians. Two separate (albeit similar) philosophies.


In the political sphere, libertarianism is just another name for "classical liberal" - they are synonyms. The actual difference is that the former refers primarily to the political aspect and the latter to the economic aspect of liberty. The only reason the word libertarian is in use at all in the modern era is because socialists co-opted the term "liberal" to mean its opposite.

Ron Paul is a "classical liberal" and a libertarian. You are most certainly not a libertarian, even if you do adopt "classical liberal" economic philosophy. Anarchists also adopt classical liberal economic philosophy but they are quite distinct in their politics.

We are not anarchists here, and you should not be misusing the word libertarian to mean something other than what it is. We have already had that happen to the word liberal and I for one am not going to let you do the same to the word libertarian.

ProIndividual
06-19-2012, 12:49 AM
Property rights are validated ethically from self-ownership in libertarian theory...and originate via Division of Labor post-Hunter-Gatherer Society, as man transitioned into Agrarian Society and trade (markets). It was specialization in the trade markets markets that necessitated control of over individual plots ofl and by individual producers...thereby creating what we call property.

This was done from 200,000 years ago forward, and up until 6,000 years ago, it was done with no state whatsoever.

So to say "sovereignty is not property rights and not only does not conflict with property rights" would only be crorect in ethics and economics insofar as "property rights" means are derived from the individual and self-ownership, not some collective like the state. The state tramples property rights by taxing property of varying kinds, and in the case of land property this makes you a renter, not owner (if you refuse to pay the extortion - tax - you will be evicted from "your" land).

In immigration, you cannot tell me who to hire and for how much if the other party is as willing as I am to engage in this employment/labor contract without trampling both my property rights as the employer (a job is my property as owner) and their rights as the laborer (labor is property of the laborer). This means border hawks tend to (but not universally) trample individual property rights, contract rights (that pertain to that property), and trade rights (by using labor protectionism).

Border hawks = labor market protectionists

That means you're taking an anti-free market stand, an anti-libertarian stand in ethics, and an anti-property stand (on contracts and trade) by endorsing border controls beyond medical exams and background checks. Clearly, the free market should dictate immigration (and is, despite the the state's attempts to subvert it).

Protectionism is Mercantilist, not free market.

ProIndividual
06-19-2012, 01:00 AM
In the political sphere, libertarianism is just another name for "classical liberal" - they are synonyms. The actual difference is that the former refers primarily to the political aspect and the latter to the economic aspect of liberty. The only reason the word libertarian is in use at all in the modern era is because socialists co-opted the term "liberal" to mean its opposite.

Ron Paul is a "classical liberal" and a libertarian. You are most certainly not a libertarian, even if you do adopt "classical liberal" economic philosophy. Anarchists also adopt classical liberal economic philosophy but they are quite distinct in their politics.

We are not anarchists here, and you should not be misusing the word libertarian to mean something other than what it is. We have already had that happen to the word liberal and I for one am not going to let you do the same to the word libertarian.

Obviously you don't what you're talking about. You have no sources to combat my facts. Wikipedia:


The word stems from the French word libertaire. The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[37] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left anarchism since the 1890s.[38] The term libertarianism is commonly considered to be a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[13]

Notice the source tags, so go to the article and click on the sources to back up the facts I assert. Also, I'd note, libertarian anarchists in the USA are generally free market individualists (as Proudhon's mutualism - a type of market anarchism - later developed into propertarian concepts under Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner, and then away from market anarchism and into free market anarchism under Rothbard), not leftist collectivists (and all the ones on this site are clearly anarcho capitalists, Agorists, individualist free market anarchists, and Voluntaryists - which Ron Paul himself refered to himself as, which is not to assert he is an anarchist in the purist sense.). We criticize the leftists for their collectivism, arguing that they advocate logically just another collective (a de facto state). Please go to the philosophy forums for a reading list on libertarian philosophy starting with Josiah Warren and Proudhon, and even delving into some Eastern philosophy of the 5th Century BC like Lao Tzu (some like Rothbard argued he was the first libertarian), and Western philosophy of the same time from the Cynics and Stoics.

Murray Rothbard, on the philosophy of 3rd Century BC Taoist Chuang-tzu:


Chuang-tzu reiterated and embellished Lao-tzu's devotion to laissez faire and opposition to state rule: "There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]." In fact, the world simply "does not need governing; in fact it should not be governed." Chuang-tzu was also the first to work out the idea of "spontaneous order," developed particularly by Proudhon in the nineteenth and by F. A. Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth Century: "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

If you can't refute things with facts and links, just stop. If you can, please do.


Classical liberalism is a political ideology that advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]

You'll notice it's found under "liberalism" and not "libertarianism" in the philosophy categorization. Liberalism is NOT libertarianism. They are similar, but distinct. The differences are bolded above (because they are unquestionably not negotiable, unlike in libertarianism).


Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase "neo-classical liberalism", leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States,[11] where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.[12][13][14]

And here is why they are different specifically:


Libertarianism refers to political philosophies which emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a government of small scope relative to most present day societies or no government whatsoever.

There is nothing voluntary about being told you can't cross some line in the sand when you have not harmed or defrauded another person. It's not private property, and therefore there is no reason to stop someone from their individual natural right to movement on a public thoroughfare.

soulcyon
06-19-2012, 01:13 AM
Queue jumpers, i love it...

edit: didn't get to read whole thread, but I'm all for pushing for border protection.

Regardless of being libertarian or not, you should keep your borders secure as to not let unwonted persons into this country. You never know if one or two of those "fence jumpers" are spies, or have bad motives. Furthermore, if you are not "indoctrinated" (for lack of a better word) with the philosophy of Freedom, lets say native Chinese, then your political actions in USA will not be the benefit for this country even if you believe otherwise.

Many actions taken these days (politically, at least) are done for "America's best interest" or pushing for "the American Dream" - and if we let any random people join our ranks, then we will lose sight of our true message. Of course, all these actions won't happen instantly, with proper injection of spies or unfreedom workers, a whole country can be turned around in a few decades.

ProIndividual
06-19-2012, 01:30 AM
Queue jumpers, i love it...

edit: didn't get to read whole thread, but I'm all for pushing for border protection.

Regardless of being libertarian or not, you should keep your borders secure as to not let unwonted persons into this country. You never know if one or two of those "fence jumpers" are spies, or have bad motives. Furthermore, if you are not "indoctrinated" (for lack of a better word) with the philosophy of Freedom, lets say native Chinese, then your political actions in USA will not be the benefit for this country even if you believe otherwise.

Many actions taken these days (politically, at least) are done for "America's best interest" or pushing for "the American Dream" - and if we let any random people join our ranks, then we will lose sight of our true message. Of course, all these actions won't happen instantly, with proper injection of spies or unfreedom workers, a whole country can be turned around in a few decades.

Culture war/economic misunderstanding in this comment. See my link to the other thread with poll so you can scroll down on page one to my long comment with all the links at the end, to address and dispel all your current reservations on economics (and hopefully collective culture). No libertarian organization I know of advocates for border controls on immigration beyond medical checks and background checks. Quotas are not free market AT ALL.

John F Kennedy III
06-19-2012, 01:34 AM
Queue Jumpers sounds good.

soulcyon
06-19-2012, 03:29 AM
Culture war/economic misunderstanding in this comment. See my link to the other thread with poll so you can scroll down on page one to my long comment with all the links at the end, to address and dispel all your current reservations on economics (and hopefully collective culture). No libertarian organization I know of advocates for border controls on immigration beyond medical checks and background checks. Quotas are not free market AT ALL.Well then, I guess I'm not a "real libertarian" then :P

I totally agree with Jefferson's statement though: “Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?
If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

Edit: For the sake of argument, what would happen if we get rid of border control? What would be the economic consequence of having a huge influx of populace? Does anyone living on this soil have the same right as a citizen? What would happen to national sovereignty?

I'm sure some of these questions have been answered, so I'll be reading through your posts :)

idiom
06-19-2012, 05:30 AM
Okay...

I am all for no borders, but most Americans like working for more than $2 per day.

However, I am simply suggesting that as a tactic, change the dialogue. If all the liberty candidates started re-framing issues aggressively the media would have a much harder time. Every time you re-frame it they have to go back tot heir think tanks and come up with a whole new set of slogans and test them. The more often it happens the less effective their brow beating and meme control becomes.

Or am I the only one that pays attention to guys like F.U. Frank?

ProIndividual
06-19-2012, 05:48 AM
Well then, I guess I'm not a "real libertarian" then :P

I totally agree with Jefferson's statement though: “Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?
If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

Edit: For the sake of argument, what would happen if we get rid of border control? What would be the economic consequence of having a huge influx of populace? Does anyone living on this soil have the same right as a citizen? What would happen to national sovereignty?

I'm sure some of these questions have been answered, so I'll be reading through your posts :)

Yes, and Franklin also thought everyone in Pennsylvania would speak German if we allowed German immigrants to keep coming in...he was wrong.


"Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it…I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties...In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious."

Yeah he was dead wrong.

I'm not suggesting ending borders or border controls, I'm suggesting you have sane ones that can be enforced. Medical exams and background checks are not "no borders" or "no border controls". The economic consequences of what I suggest ARE GOOD...and the links I give in the other thread prove that with data. Subverting the free market in labor hurts the economy, hence why the market is kicking our ass in trying to subvert it via laws that hinder it. "Illegal" immigration is just evidence of our resisting the market's determination of what immigration in the labor market should be, and evidence the state is losing while the market is winning. Because we still have borders and the best military in the world to defend those borders, this has ZERO effect on "national sovereignty" (which I oppose personally, but that is a totally separate issue entirely). This is why all the reputable libertarian organizations you can find, minarchist and anarchist, support my position. Of my sources at the other thread, there are 2 minarchist organizations and Mises, which is half minarchist. This isn't about sovereignty or anarchism vs minarchism...there is only one libertarian position on immigration, and I'm describing it with evidence to back me up on the economics of it and the ethics philosophically.

ProIndividual
06-19-2012, 06:08 AM
Okay...

I am all for no borders, but most Americans like working for more than $2 per day.

However, I am simply suggesting that as a tactic, change the dialogue. If all the liberty candidates started re-framing issues aggressively the media would have a much harder time. Every time you re-frame it they have to go back tot heir think tanks and come up with a whole new set of slogans and test them. The more often it happens the less effective their brow beating and meme control becomes.

Or am I the only one that pays attention to guys like F.U. Frank?

Yet another economic fallacy I address in the links in the other thread. Native wages INCREASE in the biggest waves of immigration we've ever seen, in any country, ever.

Allow me to quote what I wrote to someone else:


Also, again, native wages INCREASE (as the data shows in the links) with immigration, they do not fall to meet the immigrants wages. Immigrant labor makes products we buy cheaper, which makes us relatively wealthier, logically. Being wealthier because of cheaper goods mean we have more expendable income for consumption. More consumption equals more profits, and more profits equal more jobs and/or higher wages. This is how markets work. You need to do more study on labor market economics.

We don't need to rebrand anything really (well maybe it wouldn't hurt anything), we need to advocate for libertarian free market immigration policy to improve the economy and uphold individual natural rights.

DerailingDaTrain
06-19-2012, 06:46 AM
This thread is going to end up just like Enforcer's thread on immigration.

thoughtomator
06-19-2012, 07:08 AM
Immigration is not a purely economic question. In fact, it is not even primarily an economic issue. It is a political issue.

Human beings are not mere economic units and it is monstrous to predicate a political philosophy on treating them as such.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-19-2012, 11:44 AM
The only injustice is trampling individual natural rights like free movement for the "good of the collective" (the state).

One simple law should fix this for border hawks...and for non-border hawks, libertarian philosophy clearly requires no law to change to encourage "illegal" immigration (market determined, but state impeded, immigration).

The very law that fixes this problem, and a poll about it, here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381015-Immigration-Policy-Poll-Law-to-Prevent-Immigrants-from-Getting-Benefits-for-X-Years

One cannot trample a *Natural Right because such a benefit reduces literally on the physical level. Now, a civil right can be trampled because it is a fallacy based on the belief that, by the utilization of lawyers, the people somehow benefit by 51% of them suing the other 49% out of business.

*As the formal *Natural Right (the reason I have spelled it in the higher case) originated with John Locke, the more informal civil right originated with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the founding father of the French Revolution. Notice how I didn't spell founding father in the higher case regarding Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the French Revolution didn't deal with matters concerning the truth as did our Founding Fathers and the American Enlightment age they spawned.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-19-2012, 11:55 AM
Immigration is not a purely economic question. In fact, it is not even primarily an economic issue. It is a political issue.

Human beings are not mere economic units and it is monstrous to predicate a political philosophy on treating them as such.

What!

idiom
06-19-2012, 04:45 PM
Immigration is not a purely economic question. In fact, it is not even primarily an economic issue. It is a political issue.

Human beings are not mere economic units and it is monstrous to predicate a political philosophy on treating them as such.

You need a philosophy that defines 'monstrous' first.

idiom
06-19-2012, 04:47 PM
Yet another economic fallacy I address in the links in the other thread. Native wages INCREASE in the biggest waves of immigration we've ever seen, in any country, ever.

Allow me to quote what I wrote to someone else:



We don't need to rebrand anything really (well maybe it wouldn't hurt anything), we need to advocate for libertarian free market immigration policy to improve the economy and uphold individual natural rights.

I wasn't talking about falling to meet immigrant wages...

soulcyon
06-19-2012, 05:10 PM
Immigration is not a purely economic question. In fact, it is not even primarily an economic issue. It is a political issue.

Human beings are not mere economic units and it is monstrous to predicate a political philosophy on treating them as such.Perhaps it is wise to think of political philosophy in economic terms before bringing in any outside moral issues. I believe we can achieve a more agreeable set of laws, since economics is mostly defined by human interaction.

JustinTime
06-26-2012, 07:20 PM
'Re-brand' Immigration as a property issue to the polity. They've violated no one's rights & just because you want to tell other property owners how and to whom to dispose their property to is different than our current paradigm of tyranny how? The moral and libertarian position is open-State borders as long as the Government is in possession of property bordering adjacent countries.

There is nothing that says visitation, or employment privileges one to voting. So, just like to address that straw-man before someone brings it up, as well as open-State borders does not cede any jurisdiction to any supra-national body. Does Virginia and Maryland having open borders vis a vis each other bind either Virginia to Maryland's laws, vice versa, or conversely to the UN? No, it doesn't.

Let property owners of justly acquired title dispose of their own property how they choose, and to trade title to whom they choose. Thanks.

Just out of curiousity, if a property owner didnt want to do business with a certain racial or ethnic group, that'd be okey dokey with you too, right?