2016 Election: To Vote or Not To Vote

[dsayers]

This is a false question to the argument people are making. Calling it a red herring I think wouldn't be unfair and quite frankly underscores your statism bias lens you seem to not being able to help looking through. People are here telling you that voting for the state legitimizes the state. Then they get asked what if the left went unopposed [meaning people didn't vote against it]? Well what if participation with the state declined in the 20th century? What if they lost the consent of the governed?

Yep. Trying to keep the junkie comfortable just prolongs the suffering and delays the potential for restoration. Sometimes you have to just let them crash so that they can start to rebuild. Look at Obama's term. Freedoms are at an all time low, approval is at an all time low, massacre in the name of the State is at an all time high, especially domestically... More people are awake than ever and have a voice than ever. To vote when you know better is to undermine all of that. It's to choose comforting your own anxiety's in the moment at the expense of your children's freedom. Shame on all who know better and do it anyways.

[labmath2]

I have voted in the past.  Just not in every election since I was 18

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think would happen if the left went unopposed throughout the entire 20th and know 21st century?  What if everyone who believed in government voted and everyone who didn't believe in government didn't vote?  How do you think that would play out?  That's not a rhetorical question.  I really would like to know your answer.

 

What has your votes accomplished in those cases where you did vote?

 

If the left went unopposed, they would win every single vote. That doesn't mean the anarchists would not actually make any progress.  It might even be easier if half the country were anarchists and half leftists, it would make the split much easier. If half of your citizens are openly opposed to government, i don't know to what extent you call that a democracy. 

[Guest Gee]

Yep. Trying to keep the junkie comfortable just prolongs the suffering and delays the potential for restoration. Sometimes you have to just let them crash so that they can start to rebuild. Look at Obama's term. Freedoms are at an all time low, approval is at an all time low, massacre in the name of the State is at an all time high, especially domestically... More people are awake than ever and have a voice than ever. To vote  PAY TAXES when you know better is to undermine all of that. It's to choose comforting your own anxiety's in the moment at the expense of your children's freedom. Shame on all who know better and do it anyways.

 

Fixed that for ya.

[WasatchMan]

Fixed that for ya.

 

You pay taxes or go to jail.  There is no morality around a situation where you have a gun pointed at you.

[Guest Gee]

You pay taxes or go to jail.  There is no morality around a situation where you have a gun pointed at you.

 

You [Do Action] or you [Go To Less Preferable State].

There is no morality around a situation where you have [No Option To Not Transfer To A Less Preferable State].

 

 

You [Vote] or you [Go To Less Preferable State].

There is no morality around a situation where you have [No Option To Not Transfer To A Less Preferable State].

[WasatchMan]

You [Do Action] or you [Go To Less Preferable State].

There is no morality around a situation where you have [No Option To Not Transfer To A Less Preferable State].

 

 

You [Vote] or you [Go To Less Preferable State].

There is no morality around a situation where you have [No Option To Not Transfer To A Less Preferable State].

 

I am honestly scratching my head searching for your point here.

[Guest Gee]

I am honestly scratching my head searching for your point here.

 

Edited because my origional point was spegetti.

 

Basically, there are no principles here. Either

 

1. You vote because you prefer the probability of increased freedom to not voting (and virtue signaling about it).

2. You don't vote because you prefer the moral satisfaction to the increased probability of freedom from voting (or your not prepaired to exchange the work required to register and vote for the probability of increased freedom).

 

You can't get away from the concequences of the vote, just as you can't get away from the concequences of the tax man.

[Tyler H]

Tyler H, on 19 Jul 2016 - 6:42 PM, said:

Tyler H original - Anuojat comments  - Tyler H comments on comments - I'll copy them outside the quote as well for those who want to quote without adding everything.

 

 

 

 

No candidate is for reducing state power; if they are for blocking state power it is only for blocking it in one area in order to expand it in another.  As far as "the lesser of two evils" argument, that is not exclusive to this election.  You do not know that it will be much worse under Hillary - don't get me wrong it will be bad, but you cannot know how much worse, if at all worse, it will be than Trump.  Moving on to Trump's record I'm not sure what you are talking about here.  Trump has never been a politician so he has never had to back legislation in the moment against the pressures of power brokers and lobbyists.  A soundbite on Fox News or CNN with the luxury of hindsight surely cannot count. 

How do you know this? You havent wathed stefs videos on trumps background and character perhaps? Because its pretty damn clear at thsi point he is againts the incrase in state power from the left and knows what he is doing. We have rarely if ever has self funded politician from the free market coming in and smashing the sjw and general leftist narrative. But ill say more if you view stefs videos on this since thats my points too which i agree with.  How do I know what? That no candidate is for reducing state power?  You're right, I don't.  However, it's historically shown that the candidates that win are not for reducing state power because the state has done nothing but grow.  If your question is how do I know that Trump is not for less government? Well his own website his a good source.  

"I will make our military so big, powerful and strong that no one will mess with us" (Not sure how this is even possible, but hey if he says it...)

"I am very pro Israel" (good for producing terrorists)

"The New Hampshire drug epidemic must stop.  If elected POTUS - I will create borders and the drugs will stop pouring in."  (Hmm...sounds like more money going into the drug war - not less)

 

 

 

Lifeboat scenario that isn't exactly analogous, but I'll bite.  I doubt someone in the position of the gunman is so noble as to abide by your decision.  You can tell the psycho "shoot her toe" and he could blow her brains out anyways.  He's the one with the gun, he's the one willing to use force against peaceful people, he's the one that doesn't really give a wet fart what you want.  He just wants to show everyone his power by making you play the game.

 

Trump can't solve these problems. The state can't solve these problems.  Violence never solves problems. You can demand compliance with your boot on someone's neck, but you have to keep it there forever. The moment you lift it up and look away you've got a larger problem.  

 

Except in this case trump is for limiting or eliminating the problems which are the boot to our neck who speak philosofically. We cant have a free society come out eventually or free speech remain (which are interlinked) or any western values remaining without politics. Unfortunately i wish there was another way.  You don't know there isn't.  A limitation on your imagination does not reflect a limitation on reality.  If you fall back on the initiation of force whenever you can't think of a peaceful solution then there's always an excuse for statism.

 

But the state has made it impossible not to get involved in politics IF ones wants a free society or fre speech to remain. Or any values that west has held either.  ^

 

I want to make it perfectly clear: If trump doesnt win and hilary gets into power things WILL change i absolutely believe for the better. I say this with same clarity as i do with anyone whom i judge someone by his past actions. And with hilary i am certain beyodn any shadow of a dout that htings will get worse. If things will change in regards to imigration and erosion of free speech... thewre wont be a place nor road for philosofy. And i for i PREFER things that actually enbable it to exist outside of my mind.  You made an error in your statement you may want to edit, but I understand your meaning.  This is showing to be a common theme throughout this thread on the pro-vote side - you guys are so certain of the outcome of each candidates presidency.  What I am trying to make clear is that you don't know.  None of us know.  You do not know the future.  You do not know what they will decide in situations that cannot possibly be forecast.

 

How do I know what?  That no candidate is for reducing state power?  You're right, I don't.  However, it's historically shown that the candidates that win are not for reducing state power because the state has done nothing but grow.  If your question is how do I know that Trump is not for less government? Well his own website is a good source.  

"I will make our military so big, powerful and strong that no one will mess with us" (Not sure how this is even possible, but hey if he says it...)

"I am very pro Israel" (good for producing terrorists)

"The New Hampshire drug epidemic must stop.  If elected POTUS - I will create borders and the drugs will stop pouring in."  (Hmm...sounds like more money going into the drug war - not less)

 

You don't know there isn't.  A limitation on your imagination does not reflect a limitation on reality.  If you fall back on the initiation of force whenever you can't think of a peaceful solution then there's always an excuse for statism.

 

You made an error in your statement you may want to edit, but I understand your meaning.  This is showing to be a common theme throughout this thread on the pro-vote side - you guys are so certain of the outcome of each candidate's presidency.  What I am trying to make clear is that you don't know.  None of us know.  You do not know the future.  You do not know what they will decide in situations that cannot possibly be forecast.

 

-Edited to make my points inside the quotes red, for some reason they did not post as intended the first time.-

[Tyler H]

What do you think would happen if the left went unopposed throughout the entire 20th and know 21st century?  What if everyone who believed in government voted and everyone who didn't believe in government didn't vote?  How do you think that would play out?  That's not a rhetorical question.  I really would like to know your answer.

 

When did the left become government and the right become philosophical anarchists?  The state has gone unopposed for the last two hundred years.  The right produced an enormous military and the left produced an enormous welfare state while both reduced freedom - and stole the capital to do it from the vestiges of the free market, the remnants of the middle class, and the unborn; not to mention the oppression of the 3rd world to prevent competition (wars, sanctions, propping up dictators, and dumping food under the guise of charity to depress their agricultural market).  This is how it's played out, libertarians voting failed to stop it and soon we will see the results when the empire collapses under its own weight as empires are wont to do.  It's not about convincing people not to vote; it's about telling people the truth about the fruits of violence.  It won't matter what you vote for until enough people are enlightened, at which point maybe voting will make sense, maybe it won't, but right now there's not enough people who reject the initiation of force to make a difference through voting and telling them about Trump instead of the coercive nature of the state is wasted effort and hurts the cause of liberty.  

You [Do Action] or you [Go To Less Preferable State].

There is no morality around a situation where you have [No Option To Not Transfer To A Less Preferable State].

 

 

You [Vote] or you [Go To Less Preferable State].

There is no morality around a situation where you have [No Option To Not Transfer To A Less Preferable State].

This is incredibly simplistic.  Calling the near certainty that you will be thrown into a cage with murderers and rapists where you're ability to communicate the ideas of a stateless society to the world will be drastically diminished a "less preferable state" than unknown consequences of the actions of some candidate you will in all likelihood have had no real affect in electing, for which you sacrificed the integrity of your principles and took on responsibility, albeit infinitesimally small, for their crimes is misleading at best.  

 

How this is a valid comparison blows my mind.  

[Guest Gee]

This is incredibly simplistic.  Calling the near certainty that you will be thrown into a cage with murderers and rapists where you're ability to communicate the ideas of a stateless society to the world will be drastically diminished a "less preferable state" than unknown consequences of the actions of some candidate you will in all likelihood have had no real affect in electing, for which you sacrificed the integrity of your principles and took on responsibility, albeit infinitesimally small, for their crimes is misleading at best.  

 

How this is a valid comparison blows my mind.  

 

Could you make your response more simplistic?

[jpahmad]

@dsayers, Tyler H, and Wasatchman.  

 

                    This person does a pretty good job of explaining sort of where I'm coming from.

 

 

 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Post moved because it is more of a personal monologue. 

 

Rise of Globalism, Death of Culture by Stefan is very important too

[dsayers]

the difference between a D. Trump presidency and Hillary Clinton presidency should be very large.

SO WHAT?! Voting for the "lesser" of two villains is still voting for a villain. You don't have the right. Instead of using your understanding that government is a violation of EVERYBODY's property rights to lead others to the truth, you are telling the villains they are righteous and leading others by example. And worse here by trying to justify it.

[WasatchMan]

Edited because my origional point was spegetti.

 

Basically, there are no principles here. Either

 

1. You vote because you prefer the probability of increased freedom to not voting (and virtue signaling about it).

2. You don't vote because you prefer the moral satisfaction to the increased probability of freedom from voting (or your not prepaired to exchange the work required to register and vote for the probability of increased freedom).

 

You can't get away from the concequences of the vote, just as you can't get away from the concequences of the tax man.

I am glad you brought up probability, because we can do math on probability. Could you please provide me the percentage increase in probability that Trump will win the election due to your vote? If you don't know statistics let me know and I will work it out for you.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

SO WHAT?! Voting for the "lesser" of two villains is still voting for a villain. You don't have the right. Instead of using your understanding that government is a violation of EVERYBODY's property rights to lead others to the truth, you are telling the villains they are righteous and leading others by example. And worse here by trying to justify it.

not an argument

[dayna j.]

Registered Republican.  Voting Trump.  Hate me.

[rosencrantz]

There is a tipping where Western Europe turns into Middle Eastern countries, and the US turns into a Southern American country. Once this has happened, any reform to the better is impossible. 

[dsayers]

not an argument

I'm not interested in how you manage to reject what was said; It was true. And was in response to something that wasn't an argument. And DID have several arguments. More honest would've been to post that my words didn't conform to your bias.

 

reform to the better is impossible. 

This is poisoning the well. Rape cannot be "reformed" to the "better." All we can do is accept that it is a violation of property rights and not pretend like we are being noble for tolerating it in magical ways that will somehow improve the world.

[Tyler H]

Could you make your response more simplistic?

 

I can't imagine this sarcasm is anything but an attempt to transfer to me the frustration you feel at not being able to address my points.

 

@dsayers, Tyler H, and Wasatchman.  

 

                    This person does a pretty good job of explaining sort of where I'm coming from.

 

Same attempt here, saying "this person" (as if I am unaware of who Stefan Molyneux is) and posting a video that only decries democratic policies and makes the same unknowable declarations that have already been made about Trump is evidence of your inability to process or address my arguments.  It also shows it's more likely that you are just repeating what Stef says than either remembering the arguments he has presented prior or formulating them for yourself. 

 

Registered Republican.  Voting Trump.  Hate me.

 

I don't think anyone said they would hate anyone for voting; if I missed it please show me the quote.  If there is no evidence to suggest this then you may want to contemplate why you think someone will hate you if you vote for Trump.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I'm not interested in how you manage to reject what was said; It was true. And was in response to something that wasn't an argument. And DID have several arguments. More honest would've been to post that my words didn't conform to your bias.

 

dsayers this is still not an argument. You quoted one line out of about 6 paragraphs I wrote which contained evidence and reason, and you responded with a non-argument. Unfortunately, you do this so often that I can't take any of your posts seriously and I rarely read them.

[rosencrantz]

This is poisoning the well.

 

It's a realistic view at the world. If IQ, trust, cohesion get below a certain point you are doomed both on an individually and on a societal level. If you think that having your property violated now (supposedly) by voting see what happens when immigration from the third world continues. Look at South Africa or Brazil for a sneak preview. 

[Guest Gee]

I am glad you brought up probability, because we can do math on probability. Could you please provide me the percentage increase in probability that Trump will win the election due to your vote? If you don't know statistics let me know and I will work it out for you.

No idea, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because even if you could quantify the probability you couldn't quantify the value because value is subjective.

 

But we're into subjective value judgements, not principles, so all the anti voters can't put away their soap boxes.

I can't imagine this sarcasm is anything but an attempt to transfer to me the frustration you feel at not being able to address my points.

How this is a valid simplification blows my mind.

 

Just having fun bro, but I don't think you've made a point and I didn't want to type "not an argument" or respond with an "are you kidding me" meme.

 

Truthfully though this is just a value decision because there is no option to not be effected by the vote.

 

I value the increased probability of freedom from support and voting more than the moralising, you value the moralising more than the increased probability of freedom.

 

The value of the increased freedom is really an expected value, the increased probability of it happening x the value of it happening. The value is subject so if the probability could be objectively found the expected value would still be subjective because it would be subjective x objective.

 

Sooooo vanilla vs chocolate. Fair summery?

It's a realistic view at the world. If IQ, trust, cohesion get below a certain point you are doomed both on an individually and on a societal level. If you think that having your property violated now (supposedly) by voting see what happens when immigration from the third world continues. Look at South Africa or Brazil for a sneak preview.

 

Omg, the lyrics!

"You're a worthless shill, you want Brazil and you haven't got a clue. How could I troll the cuck out of you?"

[Tyler H]

I've added an anonymous poll to this topic to see what the general consensus is in the community.

[Will Torbald]

There is a tipping where Western Europe turns into Middle Eastern countries, and the US turns into a Southern American country. Once this has happened, any reform to the better is impossible. 

 

As someone from South America, this is crucial and why I support a wall. The tremendous ignorance about SA cultures and political views by Americans is dangerous and only fueled by propaganda in the media. Come here and see for yourself what kind of people you think are just like you and will vote and elect conservative or libertarian governments if you think it is so precious to have open borders.

[dsayers]

dsayers this is still not an argument.

You said that already. And then I said "I'm not interested in how you manage to reject what was said; It was true. And was in response to something that wasn't an argument. And DID have several arguments. More honest would've been to post that my words didn't conform to your bias."

 

I didn't reference your six paragraphs. I referenced one sentence that was irrelevant. If you accept property rights, then voting is not living your values. I don't care if you think you have reason to believe that less rape is somehow better. You don't have the right to support rape or to lead others astray by modeling as much.

 

Look at South Africa or Brazil for a sneak preview. 

Look at places where people are disarmed and believe in the legitimacy of the State to see what? To see how behaving as if the State is valid will protect us? To see how poisoning the well by suggesting that rape can be reformed to something better is accurate?

 

Why not look to history to see all the many times people have tried this exact same crisis du jour as a ploy to perpetuate and grow State power. The State isn't protecting you. It's stealing from your children and if you look around this thread, your neighbors are largely cheering them on.

I can't take any of your posts seriously and I rarely read them.

Your loss.

[aviet]

As someone from South America, this is crucial and why I support a wall. The tremendous ignorance about SA cultures and political views by Americans is dangerous and only fueled by propaganda in the media. Come here and see for yourself what kind of people you think are just like you and will vote and elect conservative or libertarian governments if you think it is so precious to have open borders.

Several years ago I was actively seeking to move to The Bahamas due to the tax situation there. That all ended when I looked up the annual homicide rate per 100,000:

 

 

The violence of the people is a bigger threat than their government.

I live in a relatively small town in the UK. Statistically there will be a homicide in the town every six years. If you transpose The Bahamas homicide rate on to my town there will be a homicide almost every two months. Living in such an environment gives you a very different mental place to live in. From my browsing of statistics, homicide rate is a fairly good indicator of a country's morality, just as IQ is a fairly good indicator of economic ability.

 

The homicide rates in, I think, Honduras has sometimes exceeded 1 in 1,000 people being killed a year. In some Central American cities, the homicide rate is almost always over 1 in 1,000. That means you are looking at about a 1 in 15 chance of being murdered in your lifetime.

 

A recent study of IQ from a sample of over 175,000 British students found that the average IQ of native British people is 101. If you remove native British, the relative IQ of the country falls to 94, essentially taking the UK down to the level of Eastern Europe.

 

My main fear in life is not the state, it is the fear that the relatively stable and relatively moral places in the world are at risk of disappearing through mass immigration. If that happens, you can forget your anarchy, which is not happening any time soon. It has taken thousands of years to get from tribalism to some level of reason and empathy in some societies. You can't expect to condense at least a few more centuries of human evolution into a few years. It's going to be a slow process of each generation getting better and as things are going we'd be lucky to continue on that path. Go back 3,000 years and try and convince your tribe to operate on the basis of the NAP and watch as another tribe comes in and kills the men and takes the women as slaves. Islam has done that to the more virtuous inhabitants of the Middle East and we're watching a more modern version of the same happening now.

[powder]

Several years ago I was actively seeking to move to The Bahamas due to the tax situation there. That all ended when I looked up the annual homicide rate per 100,000:

 

 

The violence of the people is a bigger threat than their government.

I live in a relatively small town in the UK. Statistically there will be a homicide in the town every six years. If you transpose The Bahamas homicide rate on to my town there will be a homicide almost every two months. Living in such an environment gives you a very different mental place to live in. From my browsing of statistics, homicide rate is a fairly good indicator of a country's morality, just as IQ is a fairly good indicator of economic ability.

 

The homicide rates in, I think, Honduras has sometimes exceeded 1 in 1,000 people being killed a year. In some Central American cities, the homicide rate is almost always over 1 in 1,000. That means you are looking at about a 1 in 15 chance of being murdered in your lifetime.

 

A recent study of IQ from a sample of over 175,000 British students found that the average IQ of native British people is 101. If you remove native British, the relative IQ of the country falls to 94, essentially taking the UK down to the level of Eastern Europe.

 

My main fear in life is not the state, it is the fear that the relatively stable and relatively moral places in the world are at risk of disappearing through mass immigration. If that happens, you can forget your anarchy, which is not happening any time soon. It has taken thousands of years to get from tribalism to some level of reason and empathy in some societies. You can't expect to condense at least a few more centuries of human evolution into a few years. It's going to be a slow process of each generation getting better and as things are going we'd be lucky to continue on that path. Go back 3,000 years and try and convince your tribe to operate on the basis of the NAP and watch as another tribe comes in and kills the men and takes the women as slaves. Islam has done that to the more virtuous inhabitants of the Middle East and we're watching a more modern version of the same happening now.

You get that immigration is a government program right?  When the governments run out of money the welfare state will end, and so will mass immigration because these people cannot prosper in a higher IQ culture without welfare.  When that happens, and the odds of that are better than a single politician being able to fix things, there needs to be a strong voice for freedom, those that have been right all along, to remind the people of why and how it continues to happen.  

[Tyler H]

You get that immigration is a government program right?  When the governments run out of money the welfare state will end, and so will mass immigration because these people cannot prosper in a higher IQ culture without welfare.  When that happens, and the odds of that are better than a single politician being able to fix things, there needs to be a strong voice for freedom, those that have been right all along, to remind the people of why and how it continues to happen.  

I agree, which is why I think the focus on favorable content towards Trump and conservatives will diminish the credit that Stef has built up for so long.

[WasatchMan]

No idea, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because even if you could quantify the probability you couldn't quantify the value because value is subjective.

 

This is quite the dodge - I am not sure how the subjectivity of the value of freedom has anything to do with the efficacy of voting.

[dsayers]

[aviet]

You get that immigration is a government program right?  When the governments run out of money the welfare state will end, and so will mass immigration because these people cannot prosper in a higher IQ culture without welfare.  When that happens, and the odds of that are better than a single politician being able to fix things, there needs to be a strong voice for freedom, those that have been right all along, to remind the people of why and how it continues to happen.  

Yes. But what are my options? Talk to my friends and try and change their minds? That is only successful and I can only do so much. Other than that I can wait for something that is unlikely to happen. The scenario that you suggest may not happen any time soon and will probably not play out as you suggest.

 

I voted for the first time for Brexit and I used my website to promote the cause to around 4 million unique visitors. So long as the result is adhered to, this will limit immigration. I see this as a better option than sitting around and waiting for the makeup of the country to be irreparably changed, collapse and enter tribal war.

 

I'll probably vote again in the future for UKIP. It's a bad system I don't agree with, but Christianity was better than paganism. There wasn't a button lying around at the time labeled 'Create Virtuous Society Now', there isn't now and there won't be after the seemingly inevitable social collapse that is coming.

 

Right now I look what tools I have available to increase my own and other's liberty and use them. That includes projecting deep into the future. The way things are going, by 2100 the population of Britain will be around 90 million. Around two thirds of this will be non-British and about one third will be Muslim. At that point you can more or less forget about NAP ever being adopted.

[powder]

I agree, which is why I think the focus on favorable content towards Trump and conservatives will diminish the credit that Stef has built up for so long.

Stef may indeed hurt his reputation as a voice for anarchy and freedom by endorsing the idea of putting Trump on the throne - however, FDR popularity and support have no doubt increased because of it.  

[Guest Gee]

I agree, which is why I think the focus on favorable content towards Trump and conservatives will diminish the credit that Stef has built up for so long.

 

FDR + Trump = 347% increase in viewership over one year.

 

 

This is quite the dodge - I am not sure how the subjectivity of the value of freedom has anything to do with the efficacy of voting.

 

Thank you. I presume you know that voting worked with Brexit, right?

 

Do you mean efficacy as in moral efficacy? Because you said it doesn't exist when there is a gun.

[powder]

Yes. But what are my options? Talk to my friends and try and change their minds about communism/climate change? That is only successful and I can only do so much. 

 

I voted for,...So long as the result is adhered to, this will limit communism/climate change. I see this as a better option than sitting around and waiting for the world to be irreparably damaged by communism/climate change, and collapse and enter nuclear war.

I'll probably vote again in the future for UKIP. It's a bad system I don't agree with, but Christianity was better than paganism. There wasn't a button lying around at the time labeled 'Create Virtuous Society Now', there isn't now and there won't be after the seemingly inevitable social collapse that is coming because of communism/climate change.

Right now I look what tools I have available to increase my own and other's liberty and use them to fight communism/climate change. That includes projecting deep into the future. The way things are going, by 2100 Britain will be destroyed by climate change. Around two thirds of the population will be and about one third will be communismists. At that point you can more or less forget about NAP ever being adopted.

I edited that so that you can better understand what it sounds like to me.  They will never run out of boogie men to spook the herd back into the pen, every generation gets its own version.  I just hope I am around long enough to witness the 'alien invasion' gig.  

[Guest Gee]

 

 

The Emperor protects, dsayers.