CLASSISM
    Stratification
    Founding Fathers
    No Oligarchy=Aristocracy
    The Few v The Many
    No Ruling Class
    Elitism v Democracy

MERITOCRACY

The Federalist (Number 88)
May 6, 1995

The State of the Union under a failed Constitution

Rebuttal to the legal profession's arguments against exclusion from elective office in the legislative and executive branches of government. Part 2.

Federalists 86 and 87 identified the cause of the failure of the Constitution by asserting and proving that: Members of the legal profession unconstitutionally control all government.¹ Additional evidence of the constitutional violation by members of the legal profession will be provided by answering the following questions:

1. Was the Constitution written to make certain that no single 'same hands' group controls all government?² And if so:
2. Does Madison's concept of 'same hands'³ include the members of the legal profession, as one potential 'same hands' group?

Affirmative answers to both questions would require evidence in the Constitution and/or the Federalist Papers respecting: a) a concern by Madison, (who wrote the Constitution) about the danger of 'same hands' control; b) the existence of language sufficient to identify members of the legal profession as one 'same hands' group; c) an outline of proposed corrective measures; and d) proof that the Constitution was written to implement the proposed corrective measures. All of the necessary evidence is there, stated as clearly as the English language and the genius of man's mind allow. I. A historical overview of the fear of a 'same hands' control group. An examination of the political context of the times will serve to give the modern reader a better sense of the concerns and motivations that led to the writing of the Constitution, and of the great fear, prevalent at the time, of granting government the power to oppress. The historical facts are undisputed. The Nation declared its independence in 1776 from a despotic British monarchy. It agreed to be governed by a document called The Articles of Confederation, ratified a few years later. However the fear of even a popularly elected government oppressing the people caused the Articles to be written granting the government insufficient power to govern.⁴ In 1787 delegates from the several States gathered in Philadelphia to correct the problem. They believed that the essence of good government over a free people required the proper balance between: individual freedom and security for all.⁵ To achieve that end, government had to be granted sufficient power to govern but insufficient to oppress. There had never before been a government of the people, for the people and by the people. If free men were to agree to grant more power to their own government over them, they wanted to make as sure as the power of the human mind and the clarity of the English language could guarantee,⁶ that the additional power granted would still be insufficient to oppress. The general fear of government oppression translated into a specific fear that a single 'same hands' group would acquire control of government, and whether elected, appointed or otherwise empowered, would become corrupt and oppressive.⁷ History teaches us that, prior to 1776,⁸ only four 'groups' had, from time to time, successfully usurped enough power from the people to control government and become oppressive. These 'groups' were: 1. The monarchy;⁹ 2. The aristocracy; 3. The military; and 4. The State sanctioned religion, (the Church). The Constitution neutralized the four 'groups' identified as potential oppressors as follows: 1. The nation was organized as a republic, so there could be no threat from a monarch. 2. Planned constitutional prohibitions against titles of nobility would protect the nation from a potential aristocracy.¹⁰ 3. The Constitution would make the elected civilian President also Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, thus neutralizing any potential threat from the military.¹¹ 4. The planned first amendment to the Bill of Rights¹² would prohibit Congress from passing any law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus protecting the nation from oppression by any State sanctioned religion. Still the fear persisted that any group united by a common interest, in control of all government and however acquiring power, would become corrupt and oppressive. The nation believed what Lord Acton, the British statesman, had said: 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' It was thus necessary to protect against that danger above all other considerations. The first step in doing so required a clear and comprehensive definition of the specific nature of the danger. The next step required writing a constitution and structuring a system of government that provided maximum protection against that danger. II. Defining the danger of 'same hands' control. Madison explained his specific concerns in the Federalist Papers. He first defined the problem as the need for a 'well constructed Union... to break and control the violence of faction.'¹³ He then defined 'faction' as 'a number of citizens, ... who are united and actuated by some common ... interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.'¹⁴ Madison repeated the same concept many times and in many different ways. He condemned the result of a 'same hands' control by declaring that:... the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'¹⁵ He reaffirmed the danger of 'same hands' control by quoting the French philosopher Montesquieu, who said: 'There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body of magistrates.'¹⁶ In which respect he was echoed by Hamilton who said: '... there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.'¹⁷ Madison also quoted Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, as follows: 'All the powers of government, legislative, executive and judiciary result to the legislative body. The concentrating (of) these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government.'¹⁸ To make certain he was understood, he restated the concept from a different perspective, by defining the government of a republic as one in which: 'It is essential ... that it be derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it.' ¹⁹ Recognizing the danger of even duly elected individuals becoming corrupt, Madison articulated the case for the separation of powers concept.: 'An elective despotism, was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.'²⁰ (Emphasis original). III. The steps taken to prevent the danger of 'same hands' control. Madison first made the case against any 'same hands' control. He then outlined the necessary steps for making sure that such control never occur, by writing a constitution implementing the concept of the separation of powers on several levels. First there was to be a union of independent states. Each State would have its own republican government. That would institute the first level of the separation of powers, between the individual states on the one hand and the federal government on the other. That means that any 'same hands' group would need to control both the individual state's government and the federal government. Second, there was to be a second level of separation of powers in the federal and in each individual state government. Every government would be divided into three separate branches, the legislative, the executive and the judiciary branches, with the necessary prohibitions against any single individual holding power in more than one branch at a time. Third, within the legislative branch, a bi-cameral system would be set up. This would implement a third level of separation of powers. Each chamber would have different powers. Both chambers would have to agree on all laws passed by the legislative branch. Thus any 'same hands' group would need to control both chambers of all legislative branches of the nation. Fourth, the right to vote would be granted to as numerous an electorate as the times allowed²¹ to insure that as many different interests/factions as possible would be represented in government, to reduce the potential danger of the formation of any 'same hands' group. Fifth, a Bill of Rights would be passed as soon as possible after the Constitution's ratification. It would outline particular rights that the people, (as original owners of all rights), would specifically retain, from and against, their government, Madison had thus set up what seemed like a fool proof system against any 'same hands' group ever acquiring effective control of all government. To overcome these obstacles a 'same hands' group would have to accomplish most, or a very substantial part of, all of the following:

1. Acquire control of both legislative houses in the federal and every state government,
2. Acquire control of the judiciary branch in the federal and every state government,
3. Acquire control of the executive branch in the federal and every state government,
4. Acquire control through the elective process in violation of the Constitution,
5. Do so with the people being generally unaware of what was happening,
6. Do so in violation of the oath of office mandatory for every elected official.
 

A most unlikely scenario indeed! Yet that is precisely what has happened.

IV. Defining members of the legal profession as a 'same hands' group. The Federalist Papers informs us that Madison feared all of the following: a) any 'same hands, whether of one, a few or many;' b) 'factions' defined as 'a number of citizens,... united and actuated by a common interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens;' and c) a government 'drawn from an inconsiderable proportion of society or a favored class.' Did he mean to include members of the legal profession as a 'same hands' group? Let us examine his statements. A. Any 'same hands, whether of one, a few or many,' The word 'hands' is unambiguous, as are the words 'a few or many.'²² The word 'same' means: 'Similar in kind or quality.' The word 'kind' is defined as: 'a number of persons or things of the same character; a class.' The word 'character' is defined as: 'the combination of qualities distinguishing any class of persons.' The word 'quality' is defined as: 'a distinguishing characteristic.' So 'same hands' means 'hands of a class of persons similar in characteristics that distinguish them.' Certainly membership in the legal profession is a similar distinguishing characteristic of a class of persons. Therefore Madison's definition includes all such members. B. Citizens united by a common interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens. Members of every professional organization are united by a common interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens. That is the reason that individuals band together and organize on the basis of their profession. They do so first and foremost in pursuit of their own financial interests. Thus, regardless of any other activities they might pursue of general interest to the public, the members of the legal profession qualify under Madison's concept of 'same hands'. C. A government composed of citizens drawn from an inconsiderable proportion of society or a favored class. The legal profession exercises complete control over the judiciary branch of government, and effective control over all others. Alone among the professions, it controls its own discipline. That is enough evidence to characterize the members of the legal profession as a 'favored class.' The profession represents less than one third of one per cent of the population which is certainly an 'inconsiderable proportion' of society. Thus a government controlled by members of the legal profession fails on both counts to meet Madison's definition of 'republican government'. That brings members of the legal profession within the meaning of the 'same hands' definition and constitutes an independent violation of the constitution on the additional count of failing to meet the definition of republican government. V. Thus all the evidence supports the conclusions that the Constitution was written to ensure that no 'same hands' group control all government, and that the members of the legal profession qualify many time over as a 'same hands' group.

About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar. He has written Federalist numbers 86 and 87 in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non-lawyer who loves the law, and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American.

The term 'meritocracy'

was first used, in a pejorative sense, in Michael Young's 1958 book Rise of the Meritocracy, which is set in a dystopian future in which one's social place is determined by IQ plus effort. In the book, this social system ultimately leads to a social revolution in which the masses overthrow the elite, who have become arrogant and disconnected from the feelings of the public.

Despite the negative origin of the word, there are many who believe that a meritocratic system is a good thing for society. Proponents of meritocracy argue that a meritocratic system is more just and more productive than other systems, and that it allows for an end to distinctions based on such things as sex and race (though social classes would still exist).

Young's central criticism of meritocracy was that a system in which social position is determined by objective characteristics would still be inegalitarian and unstable. There have since been other lines of criticism; proponents of critical theory often argue that merit is defined by the power elite simply to legitimise a system in which social status is actually determined by class, birth, and wealth.

Meritocracy is

a system of government based on rule by ability (merit) rather than by wealth, race or other determinants of social position.

However, the word "meritocracy" is now often used to describe a type of society where wealth, income, and social status are assigned through competition, on the assumption that the winners do indeed deserve (merit) their resulting advantage. As a result, the word has acquired a connotation of Social Darwinism, and is used to describe aggressively competitive societies, that accept large inequalities of income and wealth amongst the population as a function of merit, contrasted with egalitarian societies.

Meritocratic governments and organizations stress talent, formal education, and competence, rather than existing differences such as social class, ethnicity, or sex. In practice, research on social mobility indicates that all these supposedly neutral criteria favour the children of those who are already privileged in some way. This too is a Darwinian phenomenon, since every parent struggles to make and provide a better life for their children, passing on the benefits of their knowledge, prowess, and resources to ensure their children's success. This is an instinctual drive found in many of Earth's more complex animals, of which humans are only one. Many modern societies attempt to mitigate these factors of inequality (with varying degrees of success) through state intervention in education, health care, tax relief, and even cash payments per child. (see: social welfare)

Meritocracies believe in a principle of equal opportunity through equality before the law and a society free of racism, sexism and other isms but do not enforce or demand equality. To illustrate you have a right to work at and where you chose, but you do not have a right to a job. Or put differently no one has the duty to provide you a job, it is a reward that is to be earned through merit.

In a representative democracy

where power is theoretically in the hands of the elected representatives, meritocratic elements include the use of expert consultants to help formulate policies, and a meritocratic civil service to implement them. The perennial problem in advocating meritocracy is defining exactly what one means by merit or as importantly who makes the selection and on what basis.

INTRODUCTION

Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

This Anglo-American revolutionary writer called for American independence in his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, which was widely distributed and had a profound influence on public opinion in America. An English excise officer, Thomas Paine (picture) was dismissed (1774), probably for agitating for a salary increase, and emigrated to America on the recommendation of Benjamin Franklin. In Philadelphia from 1774, Paine became a journalist and essayist. After the publication of Common Sense, which sold 100,000 copies in 3 months, he continued to inspire and encourage the patriots during the Revolutionary War in the series of pamphlets called The Crisis (1776-83).

Paine returned (1787) to England after the war and published The Rights of Man (1791-92), in which he defended the French Revolution in response to Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). Outlawed for treason, Paine fled (1792) to France, became a French citizen, and was elected to the National Convention. Imprisoned (1793-94) during the Reign of Terror, Paine wrote the first part of Age of Reason (1794), a deistic statement of his religious views. All Paine's works reflect his belief in natural reason and natural rights, political equality, tolerance, civil liberties, and the dignity of man. His Age of Reason and his criticism of George Washington in Letter to Washington (1796), however, made him unpopular. In his Age of Reason he tried to emancipate humanity from Christian traditions and to establish a religion of deism. He did not recognize that the Age of Reason had ended when his book was printed. Paine returned to the United States in 1802 and died in poverty.

Contemporaries used to speak of Paine only in superlatives either of enthusiasm or contempt. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, though differing on so many points, agreed that Paine was a man to be avoided or distrusted. When Paine died, he had been poor, sick and ostracized for many years. A century after his death, Theodore Roosevelt sneered at him as a "filthy little atheist."

But independent historians have recognized that Paine, by his pamphlet Common Sense and by untiring agitation, convinced influential but hesitating Americans that independence should be declared because it was the only way to save the colonies. It was also Paine who insisted on the gathering of the Continental Congress, for the purpose of granting a Continental charter. Furthermore, it was Paine who earlier than any other proclaimed America's mission to be the defense of freedom and democracy by presenting to the whole world the example of a republic of free men.

Without any doubt, America and humanity in general owe him a grateful memory, although he was not free from vanity and his education was incomplete. After and throughout many failures in business while he lived in England, Paine had educated himself by confining his spiritual interests strictly to the science of his time. He was an artless writer although he displayed extraordinary talents for aphoristic formulas and for striking expressions.

To understand Paine we must adjudge him as a brilliant and sincere journalist, no doubt, but also as a man of thought, who always served the best principles of reason applied to conditions of the day. He was justly called the "Voltaire of America." But one thing he invariably forgot: to promote and protect his own interests.

In The Radical Academy

• Essay: The Rights of Man, by Thomas Paine
• Books by and about Thomas Paine

Elsewhere On the Internet

• Archive of Works: Thomas Paine National Historical Association
• Encyclopedia article about Thomas Paine

Ethan Allen (1738-1789)

Ethan Allen (picture) was born in Litchfield, Connecticutt and was a soldier and a philosopher. Ten years prior to the publication of Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, Ethan Alien's book, Reason The Only Oracle of Man, (1784), enunciated the principles of deism operative in American life. Condemned by the clergy and New England universities, it was admiringly referred to by freethinkers as "Ethan's Bible." When a fire at the publishing house destroyed the stock of copies, the orthodox welcomed the incident as "an act of God."

Though Allen was a contemplative man, he led an active life, engaging in farming, mining, manufacturing, and real-estate transactions. He was a soldier during the French and Indian War, and, during the War for Independence, he commanded the Green Mountain Boys of Vermont and captured from the British Fort Ticonderoga, the main approach to Canada. He was a pioneer in the development of American economic life and built a blast furnace in the Litchfield Hills of Connecticut, his native state. Vermont was his adopted state, and he vociferously defended its boundary and land claims against those of New York and New Hampshire.

Allen was reared in Arminianism. This religious belief, though tolerant of Calvinist orthodoxy, emphasized human duties more than theological speculation. Alien rebelled against any accepted dogma, publicly protesting that he was not a Christian but a deist. He opposed authority of all kinds and declared that tradition was fallible, reason the highest gift of God, and faith less reliable and unimportant. He viewed human beings as "the most selfish, oddest, and most cunning medley of beings of that size in the universe." And though his opinions of contemporary human conditions were equally pessimistic, he was confident that the ultimate victory of virtue would make for human progress. He was convinced that the existence of Man was necessary for the maintenance of the world created by God and, therefore, there "can be no ultimate failure." He held that the future was beyond human comprehension and that goodness and happiness would prevail in the last stage of human development, for so had God ordained.

In The Radical Academy

• Essay: The Exercise of Reason, by Ethan Allen

Elsewhere On The Internet

• The Story of Ethan Allen (1738-1789) - A Right to Liberty
• Ethan Allen History
• Who was "Ethan Allen"?
• Wikipedia: Ethan Allen
• Reason: The Only Oracle Of Man, A Compendious System Of Natural Religion, By Col. Ethan Allen

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

In his many careers as printer, moralist, essayist, civic leader, scientist, inventor, statesman, diplomat, and philosopher, Benjamin Franklin (picture) became for later generations of Americans both a spokesman and a model for the national character.

He was born in Boston on January 17, 1706, into a pious Puritan household. His father, Josiah, was a candlemaker and a skillful mechanic, but Benjamin said that his father's "great Excellence lay in a sound understanding, and solid Judgment." He described his mother, originally named Abiah Folger and born on the island of Nantucket, as "a discreet and virtuous Woman." His parents raised 13 children--the survivors of Josiah's 17 children by two wives. In honoring them and in a lifelong affection for New England ways, Franklin demonstrated the lasting impact of his Puritan heritage.

After less than two years of formal schooling, Franklin was pressed into his father's trade, but his more profound talents proved to be intellectual. He devoured books by John Bunyan, Plutarch, Daniel Defoe, and Cotton Mather at home, and, after being apprenticed to his brother James, printer of The New England Courant, he read virtually every book that came to the shop. He generally absorbed the values and philosophy of the English Enlightenment. Like his favorite author, Joseph Addison, whose essays in the Spectator he practically memorized, Franklin added the good sense, tolerance, and urbanity of the neoclassic age to his family's Puritan earnestness. He rejected his father's Calvinist theology, however, and soon espoused what became a lifelong belief in rational Christianity.

At the beginning of his Autobiography, Franklin states that if Providence allowed him the choice, "he should have no objection to go over the same life from beginning to the end, requesting only the advantage authors have of correcting, in a second edition, the faults of the first." Franklin was always fond of such harmless and shrewd remarks which prevented his earnestness from being pathetic. This inclination resulted in the legend that he was not entrusted with writing the Declaration of Independence, because the Founding Fathers feared he might include a joke in the writing of the solemn proclamation.

Franklin, throughout his lifetime, made strenuous efforts to perfect his mind and character. He regarded a lack of moderation as incompatible with human perfection, human dignity, efficiency, and success. The story of his love and courtship of his wife proved his talents for tempering his passion. He read poetry for amusement and for the improvement of his literary style, but he did not allow himself to become absorbed in its charms. He always reacted to life zestfully, and with humorous detachment. He regarded reason as the means by which life could be conducted intelligently. In his youth, he was greatly interested in metaphysics, but he later disavowed this branch of philosophy; the problem of absolute and consistent truth left him unmoved. It was only to science that he was deeply devoted. In science he sought for laws that govern nature and point toward the orderliness of cosmic and human relations, though he was aware that the moral sciences of his time lagged far behind the standards of the natural sciences.

Franklin summarized his experiences by eliminating the words "certainly" and "undoubtedly" from his vocabulary. In place of them, he adopted: "I conceive; I apprehend; I imagine a thing to be so; or so it appears to me at present." Other thinkers, before and after Franklin, have gone the same way. To him, it was not only the result of reasoning, but a means of success. He especially appreciated the "advantage of change," whether it concerned his own manners, or his relations to his fellow man. He formulated his creed by the words: "truth; sincerity, and integrity" as "of the utmost importance for the felicity of life." Franklin was not absorbed in utilitarianism; he enjoyed truth and integrity, "a naive lustre," independently and successfully.

As a thinker, Benjamin Franklin represents a transitional figure, a man with his feet in the soil of traditional religion and morality, with his hands among the public problems of the day, and with his head in the tasks of modern science and philosophy. He was indeed symbolic of rising America, a simple man, a practical politician, a successful businessman, an inventor of useful things, a patriot.

In The Radical Academy

• Essay: Wise Sayings, by Benjamin Franklin

Elsewhere On the Internet

• Benjamin Franklin
• Benjamin Franklin: Glimpses of the Man
• The Last Will and Testament of Benjamin Franklin
• Benjamin Franklin: "The Way to Wealth"
• Benjamin Franklin: A Documentary History
• The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin

Participatory democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad involvement of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. While etymological roots imply that all governments deserving the name "democracy" would rely on the participation of their citizens (the Greek demos and cracy combine to suggest that "the people rule"), traditional representative democracies tend to limit citizen participation to voting, leaving the main work of governance to a professional political elite. Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a political group to make meaningful contributions to decisionmaking, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities.

//

• Anticipatory democracy
• Bottom-up democracy
• Consensus democracy
• Deliberative democracy
• Direct Access Democracy
• Direct democracy
• Non-partisan democracy

Representative democracy is not generally considered participatory. Bioregional democracy often is, but that is not necessary to its definition. Grassroots democracy is an alternative term that has actually been used to imply almost any combination of the above.

Participatory politics or Parpolity is a long-range political theory that also incorporates many of the above and strives to create a political system that will allow people to participate in politics, as much as possible in a face-to-face manner.

All theories of green politics include some variant of participatory methods. In these theories, of which the best known is the Four Pillars of the Green Party, making consultation on important decisions by those who will carry it out reduces the probability of a decision that seriously disadvantages one group (reducing social justice) or of violent resistance (breaking nonviolence). Expressing ecological wisdom in law, for instance, is not likely to be respected unless the persons who live near protected ecosystems help to carry out the decision on a daily basis. Efforts to redefine green politics to exclude the participatory and consensus decision making methods have historically failed. See David Scrymgeour and Jim Harris (politician) for examples of recent failures.

Workplace democracy is an application of methods generally used in politics in the economic enterprise, including the election or hiring of management by workers. These methods are inherently participatory since the daily work is being carried out by the people who have made the decision, who bear its consequences.

• List of politics-related topics

• E-democracy
• Internet democracy
• Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies)

• Beyond Plutocracy — Free online book: "Beyond Plutocracy - Direct Democracy for America" by Roger Rothenberger.
• Conference: Participatory democracy: current situation and opportunities provided by the European Constitution
• EESC conference on Participatory democracy
• Direct Access Democracy — the superimposition of direct democracy elements onto the representative system.
• Voting methods resource page Includes a proposal for participatory democracy by means of a delegable proxy system.
• Online participatory democracy
• Articles on democracy
• Demosphere Project — The wiki & global project to develop a community based e-democracy framework using open source and interactive software. (Wikinews article)
• Principles of the Socialist Party USA

This politics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Consensus democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus democracy is the application of consensus decision making to the process of legislation in a democracy. It is characterised by a decision making structure which involves and takes into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed to systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by vote-winning majorities[1]. It also features increased citizen participation both in determining the political agenda and in the decision making process itself. Some have pointed to developments in communications technology as potential facilitators of such systems.

Consensus democracy is most closely embodied in certain Western European countries such as Switzerland, where consensus is an important feature of political culture, particularly with a view to preventing the domination of one linguistic or cultural group in the political process. ^[1]The term consociational state is used in political science to describe countries with such consensus based political systems.

The concept of ijma in Islam also addresses state decision making by consensus, albeit by the ulema (Muslim scholars) rather than the population at large. ^[2]

• Democracy (varieties)
• List of politics-related topics

• Anticipatory democracy
• Bioregional democracy
• Consensus decision-making
• Deliberative democracy
• Demarchy
• Direct democracy
• Grassroots democracy
• Minoritarianism
• Open source governance
• Sociocracy

1. ^ Lijphart, A., Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms & Performance in Thirty-six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. ISBN 0300078935
2. ^ Ijma - consensus of scholars

• Beyond Plutocracy — Free online book: "Beyond Plutocracy - Direct Democracy for America" by Roger Rothenberger.
• On Conflict and Consensus - A Handbook on Formal Consensus Decisionmaking.