85 replies to this topic

[nip]

Strangelove said:

Who says the budget deserves money?

Right, your dream land is crowded with uneducated and exploitable labor. Force them to build and serve your nation.

[Crush3r]

Strangelove, a society cannot exist if everyone is totally by himself.

[Dr. Strangelove]

AllStarZ, on 25 Mar 2008, 20:12, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 16:05, said:

Wizard, on 25 Mar 2008, 20:59, said:

Against your selfish will you mean. Just because you have no concern for the greater benefit of the others and the economy doesn't make it stealing. I think you will find that whilst no one is happy about giving their money to the government it doesn't make it stealing.

I'd like to know how you see the world working without taxes. Let's see Rand and Galt provide you with your answer to that one.

So the only difference is who gets the money? Do ends justify means?


Sure. The only job of the government is to protect Man's rights. There would only be two branches of government, the military and the police. The military protect people's rights from foreign invader's and the police to protect them from criminals. Money would supplied voluntarily. Those who don't pay aren't protected.

Wrong. The government also has a duty to provide basic civic services to its citizens, such as the availability of medical facilities (if not a health plan), roads, electricity, water, sewage, and education.

How? At whose expense? What if no one wants to help/work for/pay for the government?

Wizard, on 25 Mar 2008, 20:14, said:

You answer is so naive I am choking. I seriously don't know where to start the lengthy retort I have running in my head.

Fine, I'm with you, lets leave governments out of the loop entirely. I will give tuppence to the police & military once every summer solstice. Then who do I go to when I have medical problems? Who takes away my garbage? Who provides me with water and electricity? Corporations that's who. And do you know how the utility companies on the planet got to be where they are? Government subsidies raised through taxes. Who would trust a corporation anyway? Do you know how much corporate crime actually goes on?

Your argument is not well thought out or even remotely sane.

Should those utility companies been started by government subsidies in the first place? 99% of companies have gotten where they are without any help whatsoever. There isn't nearly as much corporate crime as government crime. Companies have reputations to protect, otherwise they would go out of business. Governments can use force, and have no reason to not hurt their own citizens. Who always commits the mass murders?

nipthecat, on 25 Mar 2008, 20:47, said:

Strangelove said:

Who says the budget deserves money?

Right, your dream land is crowded with uneducated and exploitable labor. Force them to build and serve your nation.

I don't force anybody. I don't go up to my plumber with a gun and force him to fix my sink. I offer an exchange: $$$ for Plumbing. He is free to refuse if he wishes.

Crush3r, on 25 Mar 2008, 21:24, said:

Strangelove, a society cannot exist if everyone is totally by himself.

By definition, a society is a group of people. People can and will and have become a part of a society for selfish gain. People can gain from joining a society by trading with others and working together. Voluntarily.

[Wizard]

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 22:57, said:

How? At whose expense? What if no one wants to help/work for/pay for the government?

What do you mean how? Are you really trying to waste our time? The people who use the services they provide. Then they are tried at the fulliest extent of the law.

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 22:57, said:

Should those utility companies been started by government subsidies in the first place? 99% of companies have gotten where they are without any help whatsoever.

Yes or otherwise no companies of that stature would exist. We aren't talking about a corner shop here. But corporations that require hundreds of millions of pounds in infrastructure setup and logistics. It proves to me how baseless your arguments are that you making statements like that without realising just what your point of view physically entails. How do you think every single multinational on the planet started? Through government assistance. British Telecom was state owned, as was British Gas. Both are now the largest providers of the respective services in this country. Same in every country. This wouldn't have been possible without goevernment intervention brought about from an economic system based on taxes.

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 22:57, said:

Crush3r, on 25 Mar 2008, 21:24, said:

Strangelove, a society cannot exist if everyone is totally by himself.

By definition, a society is a group of people. People can and will and have become a part of a society for selfish gain. People can gain from joining a society by trading with others and working together. Voluntarily.

Who cares if it's for selfish gain. Everyone only thinks about themselves. The difference being is that your strain of logic and argument, which I am getting rather tired of btw, suggests that there isn't a reason to think of anyone else. Well there is. Deal it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Wizard, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:25, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 22:57, said:

How? At whose expense? What if no one wants to help/work for/pay for the government?

What do you mean how? Are you really trying to waste our time? The people who use the services they provide. Then they are tried at the fulliest extent of the law.

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 22:57, said:

Should those utility companies been started by government subsidies in the first place? 99% of companies have gotten where they are without any help whatsoever.

Yes or otherwise no companies of that stature would exist. We aren't talking about a corner shop here. But corporations that require hundreds of millions of pounds in infrastructure setup and logistics. It proves to me how baseless your arguments are that you making statements like that without realising just what your point of view physically entails. How do you think every single multinational on the planet started? Through government assistance. British Telecom was state owned, as was British Gas. Both are now the largest providers of the respective services in this country. Same in every country. This wouldn't have been possible without goevernment intervention brought about from an economic system based on taxes.

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 22:57, said:

Crush3r, on 25 Mar 2008, 21:24, said:

Strangelove, a society cannot exist if everyone is totally by himself.

By definition, a society is a group of people. People can and will and have become a part of a society for selfish gain. People can gain from joining a society by trading with others and working together. Voluntarily.

Who cares if it's for selfish gain. Everyone only thinks about themselves. The difference being is that your strain of logic and argument, which I am getting rather tired of btw, suggests that there isn't a reason to think of anyone else. Well there is. Deal it.

1:I honestly expect you to explain the how.
2:So what you are saying is that people are slaves to the government. Amirite?
3:So if people don't support the government, they will be punished. What if people still refuse to do so?
4:We are talking about a corner shop. Thats how these things start. People start small, make money, and grow. Walmart wasn't started by subsidies. Neither was Westwood, Chevron, Microsoft, Apple, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Mittal Steel, Bear Stearns, and just about every company out there.
5: Well if anybody gains, it selfish, isn't it? After all, if that person even appreciates the fact that they gained, its selfish. Only if nobody gains can it be not selfish at all.
6:If there is such a reason, let me here it.

[nip]

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:57, said:

Crush3r, on 25 Mar 2008, 21:24, said:

Strangelove, a society cannot exist if everyone is totally by himself.

By definition, a society is a group of people. People can and will and have become a part of a society for selfish gain. People can gain from joining a society by trading with others and working together. Voluntarily.

What if no one wants to help/work for/pay for the government? (You make it easy for others - just copy and paste.)

Seriously dude, as a citizen of your plutocracy I either become an expat or self supporter in as much spheres of life as possible and turn my back on your government like many others. The maintenance of the infrastructure consumes vast sums of money, nobody will pay those sums 'voluntarily', neither the ordinary people nor the greedy corporations. Your nation will collapse soon if you don't force them to pay.

[Wizard]

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:40, said:

Wizard, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:25, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 22:57, said:

How? At whose expense? What if no one wants to help/work for/pay for the government?

What do you mean how? Are you really trying to waste our time? The people who use the services they provide. Then they are tried at the fulliest extent of the law.

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 22:57, said:

Should those utility companies been started by government subsidies in the first place? 99% of companies have gotten where they are without any help whatsoever.

Yes or otherwise no companies of that stature would exist. We aren't talking about a corner shop here. But corporations that require hundreds of millions of pounds in infrastructure setup and logistics. It proves to me how baseless your arguments are that you making statements like that without realising just what your point of view physically entails. How do you think every single multinational on the planet started? Through government assistance. British Telecom was state owned, as was British Gas. Both are now the largest providers of the respective services in this country. Same in every country. This wouldn't have been possible without goevernment intervention brought about from an economic system based on taxes.

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 22:57, said:

Crush3r, on 25 Mar 2008, 21:24, said:

Strangelove, a society cannot exist if everyone is totally by himself.

By definition, a society is a group of people. People can and will and have become a part of a society for selfish gain. People can gain from joining a society by trading with others and working together. Voluntarily.

Who cares if it's for selfish gain. Everyone only thinks about themselves. The difference being is that your strain of logic and argument, which I am getting rather tired of btw, suggests that there isn't a reason to think of anyone else. Well there is. Deal it.

1:I honestly expect you to explain the how.
2:So what you are saying is that people are slaves to the government. Amirite?
3:So if people don't support the government, they will be punished. What if people still refuse to do so?
4:We are talking about a corner shop. Thats how these things start. People start small, make money, and grow. Walmart wasn't started by subsidies. Neither was Westwood, Chevron, Microsoft, Apple, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Mittal Steel, Bear Stearns, and just about every company out there.
5: Well if anybody gains, it selfish, isn't it? After all, if that person even appreciates the fact that they gained, its selfish. Only if nobody gains can it be not selfish at all.
6:If there is such a reason, let me here it.

1. Explain how what? Do you really need me to explain to you how tax payers money is spent? Who it benefits? And how you can be held to account for not paying these taxes?
2. No, youarewrong.
3. If people break the law they are held accountable for their actions
4. Do you seriously believe that Boeing, Chevron, Mittal, Bear Sterns and other multinationals have received no government assitance? What planet are you living on?
5. No

Quote

concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others

if only yourself and no else gains, that is selfish. Dictionary definition.
6. Try: to better your fellow man : to create a more pleasant environment for your children : to live in a more harmonious world. None of these are attainable by being an altruist or whatever you call it stick-your-head-in-the-sand stoic.

[Dr. Strangelove]

nipthecat, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:43, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:57, said:

Crush3r, on 25 Mar 2008, 21:24, said:

Strangelove, a society cannot exist if everyone is totally by himself.

By definition, a society is a group of people. People can and will and have become a part of a society for selfish gain. People can gain from joining a society by trading with others and working together. Voluntarily.

What if no one wants to help/work for/pay for the government? (You make it easy for others - just copy and paste.)

Seriously dude, as a citizen of your plutocracy I either become an expat or self supporter in as much spheres of life as possible and turn my back on your government like many others. The maintenance of the infrastructure consumes vast sums of money, nobody will pay those sums 'voluntarily', neither the ordinary people nor the greedy corporations. Your nation will collapse soon if you don't force them to pay.

1:Then the government doesn't work. Its that simple.
2:I'm not familiar with what you call an expat. Its an expatriate right? If so, I don't understand what you are saying.
3: Yes they will. Think of it as an insurance policy. People will pay plenty to make sure that criminals that attack them get justice.
4: Greedy corporations are made up of people.

Wizard, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:55, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:40, said:

Wizard, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:25, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 22:57, said:

How? At whose expense? What if no one wants to help/work for/pay for the government?

What do you mean how? Are you really trying to waste our time? The people who use the services they provide. Then they are tried at the fulliest extent of the law.

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 22:57, said:

Should those utility companies been started by government subsidies in the first place? 99% of companies have gotten where they are without any help whatsoever.

Yes or otherwise no companies of that stature would exist. We aren't talking about a corner shop here. But corporations that require hundreds of millions of pounds in infrastructure setup and logistics. It proves to me how baseless your arguments are that you making statements like that without realising just what your point of view physically entails. How do you think every single multinational on the planet started? Through government assistance. British Telecom was state owned, as was British Gas. Both are now the largest providers of the respective services in this country. Same in every country. This wouldn't have been possible without goevernment intervention brought about from an economic system based on taxes.

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 22:57, said:

Crush3r, on 25 Mar 2008, 21:24, said:

Strangelove, a society cannot exist if everyone is totally by himself.

By definition, a society is a group of people. People can and will and have become a part of a society for selfish gain. People can gain from joining a society by trading with others and working together. Voluntarily.

Who cares if it's for selfish gain. Everyone only thinks about themselves. The difference being is that your strain of logic and argument, which I am getting rather tired of btw, suggests that there isn't a reason to think of anyone else. Well there is. Deal it.

1:I honestly expect you to explain the how.
2:So what you are saying is that people are slaves to the government. Amirite?
3:So if people don't support the government, they will be punished. What if people still refuse to do so?
4:We are talking about a corner shop. Thats how these things start. People start small, make money, and grow. Walmart wasn't started by subsidies. Neither was Westwood, Chevron, Microsoft, Apple, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Mittal Steel, Bear Stearns, and just about every company out there.
5: Well if anybody gains, it selfish, isn't it? After all, if that person even appreciates the fact that they gained, its selfish. Only if nobody gains can it be not selfish at all.
6:If there is such a reason, let me here it.

1. Explain how what? Do you really need me to explain to you how tax payers money is spent? Who it benefits? And how you can be held to account for not paying these taxes?
2. No, youarewrong.
3. If people break the law they are held accountable for their actions
4. Do you seriously believe that Boeing, Chevron, Mittal, Bear Sterns and other multinationals have received no government assitance? What planet are you living on?
5. No

Quote

concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others

if only yourself and no else gains, that is selfish. Dictionary definition.
6. Try: to better your fellow man : to create a more pleasant environment for your children : to live in a more harmonious world. None of these are attainable by being an altruist or whatever you call it stick-your-head-in-the-sand stoic.

1:I mean how as in not how the money is spent, but how the job will actually get done.
2:So it isn't slavery? I mean, it sounds like it. You give someone an ultimatum: you work for me or I hurt you. If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is.
3:See 2.
4: Where do you think money comes from? The tax money that funds subsidies comes from somewhere. That money comes primarily from big corporations. Subsidizing a corporation is self-defeating. Also, a little history on some of these companies:

Chevron
Boeing
Mittal

5:Being concerned chiefly with yourself, you really don't care if other people benefit or not. That doesn't mean that you actively try and deny them benefits , it means that if they do it would be a side-effect, not a primary motivator. A rising tide lifts all boats. If some else gains from your actions, "good for them" is what an Objectivist thinks, but their primary goal is that he gets the best.

6: If you haven't realized, you are an altruist, and you kin of just rebuked yourself.

[Wizard]

Dr. Strangelove, on 26 Mar 2008, 0:33, said:

1:I honestly expect you to explain the how.
2:So what you are saying is that people are slaves to the government. Amirite?
3:So if people don't support the government, they will be punished. What if people still refuse to do so?
4:We are talking about a corner shop. Thats how these things start. People start small, make money, and grow. Walmart wasn't started by subsidies. Neither was Westwood, Chevron, Microsoft, Apple, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Mittal Steel, Bear Stearns, and just about every company out there.
5: Well if anybody gains, it selfish, isn't it? After all, if that person even appreciates the fact that they gained, its selfish. Only if nobody gains can it be not selfish at all.
6:If there is such a reason, let me here it.

Wizard, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:55, said:

1. Explain how what? Do you really need me to explain to you how tax payers money is spent? Who it benefits? And how you can be held to account for not paying these taxes?
2. No, youarewrong.
3. If people break the law they are held accountable for their actions
4. Do you seriously believe that Boeing, Chevron, Mittal, Bear Sterns and other multinationals have received no government assitance? What planet are you living on?
5. No

Quote

concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others

if only yourself and no else gains, that is selfish. Dictionary definition.
6. Try: to better your fellow man : to create a more pleasant environment for your children : to live in a more harmonious world. None of these are attainable by being an altruist or whatever you call it stick-your-head-in-the-sand stoic.

1:I mean how as in not how the money is spent, but how the job will actually get done.
2:So it isn't slavery? I mean, it sounds like it. You give someone an ultimatum: you work for me or I hurt you. If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is.
3:See 2.
4: Where do you think money comes from? The tax money that funds subsidies comes from somewhere. That money comes primarily from big corporations. Subsidizing a corporation is self-defeating. Also, a little history on some of these companies:

Chevron
Boeing
Mittal

5:Being concerned chiefly with yourself, you really don't care if other people benefit or not. That doesn't mean that you actively try and deny them benefits , it means that if they do it would be a side-effect, not a primary motivator. A rising tide lifts all boats. If some else gains from your actions, "good for them" is what an Objectivist thinks, but their primary goal is that he gets the best.

6: If you haven't realized, you are an altruist, and you kin of just rebuked yourself.

1. How is that even relevent? The job is done by numerous government agencies that control these social institutions and dictate spending.
2. Slaves don't get paid.
3. Living within a set of laws is not slavery. It's called civilisation.
4. Yeah, my original post was intended to make you think each of these companies were started by the goverenment. Any corp that deals in huge volumes across an international scale requires government assistance. Be it subsidies on land, labour or import/export duties. Everyone of your listed companies above have had their hand in the governments pockets since day one and vice a versa. To think otherwise is to be deluded. Who do you think sets ups Boeing's arms deals with the Saudis?
5. My point still stands. Until the dictionary definition is changed, selfishness is to me what I already posted. Taking your point of view and benefit to the "detriment" of others.
6. You should have been able to guess from my post that I don't care which one the definition means. My point is that selfishness, to your point of view, and as I have gleamed from your reams of posts would end civilisation as it is and we'd decend into a chaotic state of everyman for himself where nothing would function.

Edited by Wizard, 26 March 2008 - 01:01.

[nip]

Dr. Strangelove, on 26 Mar 2008, 1:33, said:

nipthecat, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:43, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:57, said:

Crush3r, on 25 Mar 2008, 21:24, said:

Strangelove, a society cannot exist if everyone is totally by himself.

By definition, a society is a group of people. People can and will and have become a part of a society for selfish gain. People can gain from joining a society by trading with others and working together. Voluntarily.

What if no one wants to help/work for/pay for the government? (You make it easy for others - just copy and paste.)

Seriously dude, as a citizen of your plutocracy I either become an expat or self supporter in as much spheres of life as possible and turn my back on your government like many others. The maintenance of the infrastructure consumes vast sums of money, nobody will pay those sums 'voluntarily', neither the ordinary people nor the greedy corporations. Your nation will collapse soon if you don't force them to pay.

1:Then the government doesn't work. Its that simple.
2:I'm not familiar with what you call an expat. Its an expatriate right? If so, I don't understand what you are saying.
3: Yes they will. Think of it as an insurance policy. People will pay plenty to make sure that criminals that attack them get justice.
4: Greedy corporations are made up of people.

No, they won't. You expect a nation that is build on greed and selffishness to finance itself voluntarily. With 'maintenance of the infrastructure' I mean the whole infrastructure of a society, not just the police or military. Talk about millions a day and billions a month and not about 20 bucks for the plumber.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Wizard, on 26 Mar 2008, 1:00, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 26 Mar 2008, 0:33, said:

1:I honestly expect you to explain the how.
2:So what you are saying is that people are slaves to the government. Amirite?
3:So if people don't support the government, they will be punished. What if people still refuse to do so?
4:We are talking about a corner shop. Thats how these things start. People start small, make money, and grow. Walmart wasn't started by subsidies. Neither was Westwood, Chevron, Microsoft, Apple, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Mittal Steel, Bear Stearns, and just about every company out there.
5: Well if anybody gains, it selfish, isn't it? After all, if that person even appreciates the fact that they gained, its selfish. Only if nobody gains can it be not selfish at all.
6:If there is such a reason, let me here it.

Wizard, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:55, said:

1. Explain how what? Do you really need me to explain to you how tax payers money is spent? Who it benefits? And how you can be held to account for not paying these taxes?
2. No, youarewrong.
3. If people break the law they are held accountable for their actions
4. Do you seriously believe that Boeing, Chevron, Mittal, Bear Sterns and other multinationals have received no government assitance? What planet are you living on?
5. No

Quote

concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others

if only yourself and no else gains, that is selfish. Dictionary definition.
6. Try: to better your fellow man : to create a more pleasant environment for your children : to live in a more harmonious world. None of these are attainable by being an altruist or whatever you call it stick-your-head-in-the-sand stoic.

1:I mean how as in not how the money is spent, but how the job will actually get done.
2:So it isn't slavery? I mean, it sounds like it. You give someone an ultimatum: you work for me or I hurt you. If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is.
3:See 2.
4: Where do you think money comes from? The tax money that funds subsidies comes from somewhere. That money comes primarily from big corporations. Subsidizing a corporation is self-defeating. Also, a little history on some of these companies:

Chevron
Boeing
Mittal

5:Being concerned chiefly with yourself, you really don't care if other people benefit or not. That doesn't mean that you actively try and deny them benefits , it means that if they do it would be a side-effect, not a primary motivator. A rising tide lifts all boats. If some else gains from your actions, "good for them" is what an Objectivist thinks, but their primary goal is that he gets the best.

6: If you haven't realized, you are an altruist, and you kin of just rebuked yourself.

1. How is that even relevent? The job is done by numerous government agencies that control these social institutions and dictate spending.
2. Slaves don't get paid.
3. Living within a set of laws is not slavery. It's called civilisation.
4. Yeah, my original post was intended to make you think each of these companies were started by the goverenment. Any corp that deals in huge volumes across an international scale requires government assistance. Be it subsidies on land, labour or import/export duties. Everyone of your listed companies above have had their hand in the governments pockets since day one and vice a versa. To think otherwise is to be deluded. Who do you think sets ups Boeing's arms deals with the Saudis?
5. My point still stands. Until the dictionary definition is changed, selfishness is to me what I already posted. Taking your point of view and benefit to the "detriment" of others.
6. You should have been able to guess from my post that I don't care which one the definition means. My point is that selfishness, to your point of view, and as I have gleamed from your reams of posts would end civilisation as it is and we'd decend into a chaotic state of everyman for himself where nothing would function.

1: It is relevant, I'll show you if you're willing to provide me with your plan.
2:Yes they do, in the bread and housing that keeps them alive.
3:That really depends what the laws are. Those that protect Man's rights are civilized, those that violate them are not.
4:Name 1 subside Chevron recieved, and what percent that was of their financial assets at the time.
5: Well whatever. I'm sticking with my definition, and I'm going to call it "SelfishEgoness".
6:Men gain from order, and thus it is in their best interests to preserve it.

nipthecat, on 26 Mar 2008, 1:05, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 26 Mar 2008, 1:33, said:

nipthecat, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:43, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 25 Mar 2008, 23:57, said:

Crush3r, on 25 Mar 2008, 21:24, said:

Strangelove, a society cannot exist if everyone is totally by himself.

By definition, a society is a group of people. People can and will and have become a part of a society for selfish gain. People can gain from joining a society by trading with others and working together. Voluntarily.

What if no one wants to help/work for/pay for the government? (You make it easy for others - just copy and paste.)

Seriously dude, as a citizen of your plutocracy I either become an expat or self supporter in as much spheres of life as possible and turn my back on your government like many others. The maintenance of the infrastructure consumes vast sums of money, nobody will pay those sums 'voluntarily', neither the ordinary people nor the greedy corporations. Your nation will collapse soon if you don't force them to pay.

1:Then the government doesn't work. Its that simple.
2:I'm not familiar with what you call an expat. Its an expatriate right? If so, I don't understand what you are saying.
3: Yes they will. Think of it as an insurance policy. People will pay plenty to make sure that criminals that attack them get justice.
4: Greedy corporations are made up of people.

No, they won't. You expect a nation that is build on greed and selffishness to finance itself voluntarily. With 'maintenance of the infrastructure' I mean the whole infrastructure of a society, not just the police or military. Talk about millions a day and billions a month and not about 20 bucks for the plumber.

1: Millions and billions are the figures of the collective value of many different $20.
2:O rly? I pay my water, gas, and electricity bills. It is in Man's best interest to pay for the infrastructure too.

Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 26 March 2008 - 04:18.