Government taxation and alternative currencies

[Anthony Schexnaildre]

I have been a bit down on the let's-create-a-new-currency discussions that have come up in the last week. It's not because I don't believe in all the potential benefits. It's simply the fact that the Queen only accepts the payment of taxes in her own money. Assuming that the alternative currencies are widely accepted and loved, at some point the overall turnover will make the tax debt on that income greater than the Queen's money people have on hand. What is a practical solution to this?

I have posed this question in other forums and the only answer I have gotten (and which is being used today) is to limit the circulation of the alternative currencies. Often this is done through imposing that transactions at the point of sale are split tender - some portion in the Queen's money and the other portion in this new currency. I have quite a few issues excepting solution for many rather obvious reasons. However I have not been intelligent enough myself to come up with anything better. I look forward to hearing thoughts from group.

-Anthony

[Dennis Peterson]

Taxes being one of the main things that gives those little pieces of paper their value....just like the old "talley stick" system of King Henry I, when people used broken sticks for money because that's what the King accepted in taxes (counterfeit-free because the stick had to match its other half in the king's vault):

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/laborde082407.html

It seems to me that whatever the amount of government currency (being American I'll say "dollars") in circulation, the system will work fine. If there are a limited number of dollars, then by supply and demand they will trade for a large amount of alternate currency...or, to put it another way, the dollar value of the alternate currency will be low, and hence the taxes will be low in dollar terms.

If the government doesn't like this situation (eg due to low tax rates at those dollar amounts), it can simply print more dollars.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "agile-banking" group.
To post to this group, send email to agile-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to agile-bankin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/agile-banking?hl=en.

[wizardwatson]

I think in the initial stages of something like an alternative
currency/monetary system taking off, this won't be an issue, but
you're right, eventually it would come to a point where the government
would either outlaw it outright or switch to actually using such a
system.

And this really is an important question because ultimately people
must decide if monopolistic control of the money system is granted to
government or whether its not. If we decide its ok, then I guess we
just get to deal with business cycles that wipe out Trillions of
dollars in wealth over the course of a few trading days, and
deliberately unmeasurable inflation that substantially and
consistently eats away at our purchasing power.

If we decide it's not ok, then we're basically requiring our
government to spend only what it takes in as taxes. We would be
forcing them to "steal from us" out in the open instead of hiding the
"real" tax through currency manipulation.

But removing the government's "power to inflate" is really all that an
alternative currency system presupposes. Apart from that government
entities could participate just like any other entity. They could
accept payments (taxes) and make payments (disbursements) in the way
they always have. What we want to stop, in my opinion, is the process
by which governments inflate themselves 'away' from insolvency, either
directly in the Fed's case, or indirectly via bond issuance and FRN
system borrowing.

[Miles Thompson]

yup tax is a big issue with alt currency.

its good that LETS and other alt currencies have been around long enough that rulings have been made by govt tax revenue bodies... at least in NZ we know where we stand [1]

to make paying taxes on currency earning in 'alternative' currency, those currencies need to be liquid against the mainstream currency.. that means you need a good reason why at least *some* people would prefer the alt currency over the mainstream currency and thus be willing to 'buy in' using cold hard cash, so that needs to be designed into the currency [2]

miles

[1] IANAL but I believe in NZ they ruled that green dollars incur a tax liability (in the queens money) when the amount is over a certain a threshold ($40k) or when it is 'in the same line of business' as the main occupation of the relevant party. in other jurisdictions, and with other types of currency (mostly time dollars) there have been rulings that the alt currency is strictly a gift economy thing

[2] when the currency is just the denomination for a 'narrow' bank this is easy, with a 'full HD' alternative currency (like LETS) this is *hard*..but i believe reasons can be found (too long for this email)

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Anthony Schexnaildre <apsc...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "agile-banking" group.
To post to this group, send email to agile-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to agile-bankin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/agile-banking?hl=en.

--
miles
http://blog.tradeify.org
http://google.com/profiles/utunga

[michael linton]

Anthony,

I don't see any problem with taxes - if they're paid.  This is really a "render unto Caesar" issue that any tax-payer has to take into account. 

Our primary advice to users is that the tax authorities have the power to tax anything that moves, more or less, and all should govern themselves accordingly.

Ideally, and in the long run, we anticipate that taxes incurred in any particular cc should be paid at least in part in that cc, thus requiring government to invest in community rather than extract.  Maybe a very long run.

So, in the shorter run, we advise all users to ensure that the terms of a transaction generate enough cash / legal tender to meet all directly attributable outgoing consequences - wholesale costs, fuel costs, sales taxes, income tax, pension cortibutions etc. 

So far, no problem. 

Think of it like hamburger helper (if you can bear it).  The added volume of funds available allows for the necessary deployment.   Yes, it's a drag, but it doesn't break the model.

cheers, Michael

[Anthony Schexnaildre]

Michael,

I definitely agree, for responsible individuals/companies that understand how to work with the system there will never be an issue, the alt currency just becomes a pointless layer of obscurity to the individual participants. The reason is because as you run the clock forward and the alt currency has changed hands enough times every bit of the value turns into taxes owed. If you imagine then a number of these alt currencies all operating, and a bunch of exchange houses to support flow between them, come tax time everyone is going to want their national currency back. At the first sign of abuse by the exchange houses no one will move their money back into the alt currency in the future. Now I agree with everything that alt currency is trying to do but if I am not mistaken some of the reasons for a government only accepting it's national currency is to negate those benefits.

Is there something I am intrinsically ignorant of?

-Anthony

[michael linton]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Anthony Schexnaildre <apsc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Michael,

I definitely agree, for responsible individuals/companies that understand how to work with the system there will never be an issue,

I'm with you so far
 

the alt currency just becomes a pointless layer of obscurity to the individual participants.

but now you've lost me.  If it's pointless, why is it there at all?

 

The reason is because as you run the clock forward and the alt currency has changed hands enough times every bit of the value turns into taxes owed.

This I really don't understand at all.  Transactions will generate tax bills, but also free national money to meet those bills.

 

If you imagine then a number of these alt currencies all operating, and a bunch of exchange houses to support flow between them, come tax time everyone is going to want their national currency back.

and this is still further off my map.  In the systems I'm working on, they aren't bought with national currency - there's no point, and it's not necessary.   They exist to facilitate commerce, not for gaming or speculation.

In any case, I don't ever use the "alternative" word, as it doesn't relate at all to any community currencies (cc) that interest me.  Community currencies aren't alternative to anything.  They aren't primarily stores of value, and there won't be much cc action in "exchange houses", if any. 

It seems to me you're supposing the emergence of some sort of market in "alt" money?

 

At the first sign of abuse by the exchange houses no one will move their money back into the alt currency in the future.

Perhaps, for alternate money, this will be so - assuming that your exchange houses are likely to abuse.  But users of cc don't get their cc by "moving their money" into it in the first place.

 

Now I agree with everything that alt currency is trying to do

I'll happily take your word for that, but it's my impression that we're on very different pages.  My cc is definitely not your alt. 

 

but if I am not mistaken some of the reasons for a government only accepting it's national currency is to negate those benefits.

 
I have no experience of government seeking to negate the benefits of cc - quite the contrary.  Nor does a government only accepting its national currency cause any difficulties.

Regarding "alt" money, you may well be right - but I really don't know anything about that.

 

Is there something I am intrinsically ignorant of?

Well, I think it's pretty safe to say that what you are discussing isn't what I'm talking about.   Perhaps that's something we've learned?

cheers,

Michael

[Dennis Peterson]

When the government takes your national currency, it doesn't disappear down a black hole. The government spends it. The people who receive that money can then convert it back into "alt" currency if they prefer. The only question is whether they do in fact prefer the alt currency. (And if they don't, the government isn't your main problem.)

[Anthony Schexnaildre]

It's my fault in trying to dash off a quick email. I will sit down and write something a bit more thoughtful later today or tomorrow when I have the time. Thank you Michael.

-Anthony

[Kyle Lahnakoski]

First thanks to Anthony for bring up some realistic points in this fanciful conversation about a new currency.  Taxes must be paid in the official government currency, and law of contracts allows a judge to settle debts in the official currency.  No government would undermine their own currency by supporting another. 

There is no problem with current world currencies.  The "power to inflate" is only government policy and is ultimately controlled by the voters of the country.  There is already economic analysis that suggests a 0% inflation target is best.  Now the challenge is to make it government policy.

I really do not understand how the electorate in a large number of countries let the financial contagion happen, but at least the voters will learn about the negative consequences of complacency.  

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Lahnakoski                                       ky...@arcavia.com
(905) 895-8467                                    Arcavia Software Ltd

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Anthony Schexnaildre <apsc...@gmail.com> wrote:

 It's simply the fact that the Queen only accepts the payment of taxes in her own money.

How would it work if we used an asymetrical exchange / donations based system, earning reputation ( and not debt ) ?

I am not a lawyer, but my guess is that reputation units would be difficult to tax.

And if it does get taxed, perhaps a solution could be to be individually insolvable in monetary terms,

while having use value infrastructure to whom we contribute owned by a form of commons, under potentially a not for profit status ?

Does this sound similar to the way some religious orders can operate ?

---

Is this idea off mailing list topic ?

 

[Anthony Di Franco]

In addition to religious orders, mutual aid societies were entities
that, before the nationalization / corporatization of the social
safety net in the New Deal, provided such a commons of benefits,
including a form of health insurance, and have a non-profit category
for them still in the US tax code. The Amish faith(s?) act as both
religions and mutual aid societies, and are exempt from many federal
taxes, as well as from the proposed US health care legislation's
requirements.

[michael linton]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Dennis Peterson <dennisb...@gmail.com> wrote:

When the government takes your national currency, it doesn't disappear down a black hole. The government spends it. The people who receive that money can then convert it back into "alt" currency if they prefer. The only question is whether they do in fact prefer the alt currency. (And if they don't, the government isn't your main problem.)

All true Dennis - converting back and forth between national and alt is pretty pointless, and the tax regime simply doesn't care.  Either way, they take their due.
 
But a community currency isn't just another thing to buy and sell, another place to shift and store assets.  It can be bought and sold - like most anything - but that's not what it's for or where it comes from.

A cc is issued by users and circulates as a means of exchange, not as a store of value.  It's new and additional money, augmenting economies rather then merely diverting or exploiting them.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Anthony Schexnaildre<apschexn@gmail.com> wrote:

It's my fault in trying to dash off a quick email. I will sit down and write something a bit more thoughtful later today or tomorrow when I have the time. Thank you Michael.

No fault Anthony - I think on the contrary you've usefully exposed a critical distinction.  I realise my manner of responding was rather "late in a long day" and apologise for any offence.  None intended.

But I think (and I could be wrong of course) that you are thinking of Hayek-like private currencies and for such your critique is probably right on the money.  But that's just an uninformed opinion on my part - Hayek's not at all my bag.




On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:35 AM, Kyle Lahnakoski <ky...@arcavia.com> wrote:
..

There is no problem with current world currencies.  The "power to inflate" is only government policy and is ultimately controlled by the voters of the country.  There is already economic analysis that suggests a 0% inflation target is best.  Now the challenge is to make it government policy.

..

Michael writes: Good luck with meeting that challenge Kyle.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Anthony Di Franco <di.f...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 08:14, Dante-Gabryell Monson
<dante....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Anthony Schexnaildre <apsc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>  It's simply the fact that the Queen only accepts the payment of taxes in
>> her own money.
>

> How would it work if we used an asymetrical exchange / donations based
> system, earning reputation ( and not debt ) ?
> I am not a lawyer, but my guess is that reputation units would be difficult
> to tax.
> And if it does get taxed, perhaps a solution could be to be individually
> insolvable in monetary terms,
> while having use value infrastructure to whom we contribute owned by a form
> of commons, under potentially a not for profit status ?
> Does this sound similar to the way some religious orders can operate ?

In addition to religious orders, mutual aid societies were entities
that, before the nationalization / corporatization of the social
safety net in the New Deal, provided such a commons of benefits,
including a form of health insurance, and have a non-profit category
for them still in the US tax code.  The Amish faith(s?) act as both
religions and mutual aid societies, and are exempt from many federal
taxes, as well as from the proposed US health care legislation's
requirements.

This is a definite possibility (ianal either) where the moral ethical criteria can be met.  As it generally is for internal transactions between departments in a corporation.  But I think the IRS would be quick to come down on anything that looked like a merely expedient means to mask tax evasion.  Reality is perception, in the eyes of the tax authorities, and a cluster of trading corporations that can't properly claim a common bond other than tax relief will be about as popular as bonuses for bailed out bankers.

Please note how the content of this thread is mainly about the issues of tax and the potential drag and discouragement of different means of exchange. 

Until the intrinsic value proposition of new currencies (freely issued, circulating within self-defined communities etc etc) is discerned, tax issues will seem both significant and discouraging.   And when it is, they won't.

Michael

[michael linton]

Breaking news! - http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_economy_grinds_to_halt_as

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM, michael linton <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is a definite possibility (ianal either) where the moral ethical criteria can be met.  As it generally is for internal transactions between departments in a corporation.  But I think the IRS would be quick to come down on anything that looked like a merely expedient means to mask tax evasion.  

Thanks Michael and Anthony

Additionally, I ask myself how this compares with yet another situation, such as corporations supporting , and benefiting from libre open source software, such as linux ?

Would the IRS be in a position to tax various forms of commons , built up through donations / gifts ?

What type of non-debt "agile banking" would this enable ?

Perhaps a form of agile and emergent resource allocation , based on attention economics, earning reputation ? 

Reputation "credit" facilitating access to gifts according to needs, while potentially also earning political influence within a system ?

An information system for a permanent process of Potlach, but in a way that enables more complex forms of interdependencies,

converging attention and resources around either, or both

1) a transparent system of requests for support and contributions

2) or , if I understood properly, through connecting requests and potential contributions through a "friend to friend" distributed system based on "keys" / encryption - see Robin Upton's suggestions and software development :

http://www.altruists.org/projects/ge/ff/

---

... let me know if you feel it is displaced to mention gift based resource allocation systems,

if you feel this list should only be focusing on debt based information systems...

unless one considers "reputation" as an IOU ???

or , alternatively, if we consider that we , as a sum of individuals, are indebted to future generations and to all life, owing what we can do ?

[Steve Dekorte]

On 2010-02-17, at 3:35 AM, Kyle Lahnakoski wrote:
> There is no problem with current world currencies. The "power to inflate" is only government policy and is ultimately controlled by the voters of the country.

In which country do voters directly decide monetary policy? AFAIK, monetary policy is (almost without exception) determined by private banks that benefit from the creation of new money.

> I really do not understand how the electorate in a large number of countries let the financial contagion happen, but at least the voters will learn about the negative consequences of complacency.

1) The electorate is educated by government schools (and knows little of monetary policy)
2) What motivation do they have to learn as they when they have no say in it?
3) Whatever happens will be judged by the media to be solvable via more government intervention i.e. solvable by politicians purchased by the banks.

[michelangelo]

On Feb 17, 12:35 pm, Kyle Lahnakoski <k...@arcavia.com> wrote:
> There is no problem with current world currencies.

I disagree. In order to avoid confusion I propose to follow some
common terminology:

Counterfeiting: The criminal practice of debasing the currency or
creating fraudulent money.

Publicly-Owned Money Expansion: at the knowledge and consent of
citizens, the government debases the currency as a matter of policy
for a revenue stream other than taxation, spent on legitimate
government
services.

Privately-Owned Money Expansion: without the knowledge and consent
of citizens, private bankers transform receipt money into fractional
money,
and the practice is regarded as legal by the government.
Revenue is counted as ‘profit’ by private bankers.

What a fair and sound money system really requires is scarcity
integrity.
All systems devised so far can be debased. However, debasement is not
necessarily an intrinsic property of any of them. A fair public money
system must at the very minimum be either publicly-owned fractional,
where there is legislative control over reserve requirements, or fully-
backed,
in which case ownership of the unbacked fraction is irrelevant (there
is
no unbacked fraction).
Fiat currency is unsound, but not in the sense that it will inevitably
lead to
total loss of value. Loss of value occurs at the discretion of whoever
can
effectively manipulate the reserve requirement via scarcity-unit
creation
and ownership, unilaterally and clandestinely, concealed from other
holders
(i.e. without their consent).
Privately-owned fractional banking is not a fair system because, in
short,
it facilitates private confiscation of public property, represented by
the
public money. However, it is not necessarily unsound in the sense that
it is
unstable or will always collapse.

The math analysis to support such thesis has been developed by
Vladimir Z. Nuri
on his paper, Fractional Reserve Banking as Economic Parasitism.

I come across it some years ago. I am still studying it. Maybe you
should too.

[Kyle Lahnakoski]

I am not disagreeing with your points here.� My point is that an alternative currency will not solve these problems.� Even if you get a government to support a new currency, the rules regarding Privately-Owned Money Expansion will be applied to the new currency and the same problems will persist.

My point was that the electorate can decide the banking rules.� The electorate has allowed the government to allow private money expansion.� The electorate change their mind, and demand there be rules regarding private money expansion, or even ban the practice outright.� The Silent Generation did a good job at reigning in government corruption and banking parasitism because they saw what happened when the citizens did not hold their government to account.��

Maybe my point is too subtle:� To be blunt: Law and the Constitution, are only guiding principals and can be changed for better or for worse.�� I am not advocating such action, I am merely pointing out the necessity of voter involvement to enact or prevent change.




michelangelo wrote:

On Feb 17, 12:35�pm, Kyle Lahnakoski <k...@arcavia.com> wrote:
  

There is no problem with current world currencies.
    

I disagree. In order to avoid confusion I propose to follow some
common terminology:

Counterfeiting: The criminal practice of debasing the currency or
creating fraudulent money.

Publicly-Owned Money Expansion: at the knowledge and consent of
citizens, the government debases the currency as a matter of policy
for a revenue stream other than taxation, spent on legitimate
government
services.

Privately-Owned Money Expansion: without the knowledge and consent
of citizens, private bankers transform receipt money into fractional
money,
and the practice is regarded as legal by the government.
Revenue is counted as �profit� by private bankers.

What a fair and sound money system really requires is scarcity
integrity.
All systems devised so far can be debased. However, debasement is not
necessarily an intrinsic property of any of them. A fair public money
system must at the very minimum be either publicly-owned fractional,
where there is legislative control over reserve requirements, or fully-
backed,
in which case ownership of the unbacked fraction is irrelevant (there
is
no unbacked fraction).
Fiat currency is unsound, but not in the sense that it will inevitably
lead to
total loss of value. Loss of value occurs at the discretion of whoever
can
effectively manipulate the reserve requirement via scarcity-unit
creation
and ownership, unilaterally and clandestinely, concealed from other
holders
(i.e. without their consent).
Privately-owned fractional banking is not a fair system because, in
short,
it facilitates private confiscation of public property, represented by
the
public money. However, it is not necessarily unsound in the sense that
it is
unstable or will always collapse.

The math analysis to support such thesis has been developed by
Vladimir Z. Nuri
on his paper, Fractional Reserve Banking as Economic Parasitism.

I come across it some years ago. I am still studying it. Maybe you
should too.

  

[Dennis Peterson]

I'm all for trying, but after a couple years of political activism, partly along these lines, I'm not optimistic enough to bank on it as the only strategy. There's a big gap between "the electorate" and the politicians, and the politicians are very adept at keeping it that way. Particularly at the national level, it's a tough road.

So in conjunction with reform efforts, I'm thinking local and virtual currencies, open exchanges, and any other means to legally route around national governments. 

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Kyle Lahnakoski <ky...@arcavia.com> wrote:

I am not disagreeing with your points here.  My point is that an alternative currency will not solve these problems.  Even if you get a government to support a new currency, the rules regarding Privately-Owned Money Expansion will be applied to the new currency and the same problems will persist.

My point was that the electorate can decide the banking rules.  The electorate has allowed the government to allow private money expansion.  The electorate change their mind, and demand there be rules regarding private money expansion, or even ban the practice outright.  The Silent Generation did a good job at reigning in government corruption and banking parasitism because they saw what happened when the citizens did not hold their government to account.  

Maybe my point is too subtle:  To be blunt: Law and the Constitution, are only guiding principals and can be changed for better or for worse.   I am not advocating such action, I am merely pointing out the necessity of voter involvement to enact or prevent change.

michelangelo wrote:

On Feb 17, 12:35 pm, Kyle Lahnakoski <k...@arcavia.com> wrote:
  

There is no problem with current world currencies.
    

I disagree. In order to avoid confusion I propose to follow some
common terminology:

Counterfeiting: The criminal practice of debasing the currency or
creating fraudulent money.

Publicly-Owned Money Expansion: at the knowledge and consent of
citizens, the government debases the currency as a matter of policy
for a revenue stream other than taxation, spent on legitimate
government
services.

Privately-Owned Money Expansion: without the knowledge and consent
of citizens, private bankers transform receipt money into fractional
money,
and the practice is regarded as legal by the government.
Revenue is counted as ‘profit’ by private bankers.

What a fair and sound money system really requires is scarcity
integrity.
All systems devised so far can be debased. However, debasement is not
necessarily an intrinsic property of any of them. A fair public money
system must at the very minimum be either publicly-owned fractional,
where there is legislative control over reserve requirements, or fully-
backed,
in which case ownership of the unbacked fraction is irrelevant (there
is
no unbacked fraction).
Fiat currency is unsound, but not in the sense that it will inevitably
lead to
total loss of value. Loss of value occurs at the discretion of whoever
can
effectively manipulate the reserve requirement via scarcity-unit
creation
and ownership, unilaterally and clandestinely, concealed from other
holders
(i.e. without their consent).
Privately-owned fractional banking is not a fair system because, in
short,
it facilitates private confiscation of public property, represented by
the
public money. However, it is not necessarily unsound in the sense that
it is
unstable or will always collapse.

The math analysis to support such thesis has been developed by
Vladimir Z. Nuri
on his paper, Fractional Reserve Banking as Economic Parasitism.

I come across it some years ago. I am still studying it. Maybe you
should too.

  

--

[Steve Dekorte]

On 2010-02-22, at 9:48 AM, Kyle Lahnakoski wrote:
> I am not disagreeing with your points here. My point is that an alternative currency will not solve these problems. Even if you get a government to support a new currency, the rules regarding Privately-Owned Money Expansion will be applied to the new currency and the same problems will persist.

This is why a precious metal is required - the government/banks can't print it. And the only way fractional reserve credit expansion can "work" is if the banks can effectively print.

> My point was that the electorate can decide the banking rules.

I understand your perspective. My point is that representational democracy is a fraud and the only people the representatives represent are themselves. In economics, this is known as the principal/agent problem. A direct democracy can solve this problem and until we have a direct democracy, the voters don't really decide anything.

[David Nicol]

"trade credit" is in use in business and has been forever; tax law
varies by jurisdiction of course

http://www.google.com/search?q=%2Btaxation+%22trade+credit%22

but that's the body of case law your lawyers will be looking at for
guidance, I presume.

[Steven Talcott Smith]

This gets into Agorist philosophy -- which rejects political activism in favor of entrepreneurship.  

Market solutions where people vote continually with their time, money and resources seem much more effective and rewarding for the time invested.

Steven

[Pelle Braendgaard]

That is exactly my philosophy.

http://econotrix.com/archives/000594.html

P

http://agree2.com - Reach Agreement!
http://extraeagle.com - Solutions for the electronic Extra Legal world
http://stakeventures.com - Bootstrapping blog

[Steven Talcott Smith]

I keep a toe in politics just in case miracles happen but it seems like a ridiculous waste of my time and skills.

Agorism is where it's at.

Steven

[Anthony Di Franco]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy_(video_game)

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 19:03, Steven Talcott Smith