American Expatriation Guide

brandwach said:
Well, yes, I think government in any form in authoritarian, democracy is no exception. Taxation is authoritarian as it is foisted upon you against your will. Voluntary interactions are not authoritarian. Paying at a restaurant is totally different as I consent to pay there. I may choose to patronize them or not. The issue is consent.

Liberal democracies are not authoritarian precisely because they are based on the consent of the governed. What makes you say that American politics are not based on consent of the governed? Are you unfamiliar with the concepts of VOTING and REPRESENTATION? Are you unaware that as a citizen you are entitled to RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE and thus DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE in the creation of public policy if representation is not enough for you? Again, your comments sound either disingenuous or incredibly stupid. If you really don't understand how a democracy works, then you should learn about it before making inflammatory remarks regarding authoritarianism and taxation. Just because righties like Rad and Lee don't know what they are talking about doesn't mean you or anyone else is justified in aping their selfish stupidity.

In a liberal democracy your consent actually comes in two forms:

First, your CONSENT IS CAPTURED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. Constitutional democracy requires that you consent to the DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURE for creating public policy in your daily choice to remain a US citizen. If you don't like the way law is created in America - that is, if you don't like the kind of representative democracy spelled out in our constitution - you can always go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to remain a citizen: you CHOOSE/CONSENT to remain a citizen. This is especially true in your case and not just idle "take it or leave it" talk. Political theorists call it "implicit consent" or "consent by foot": though we may not realize it, we choose to be citizens of our home state each and every day of our lives. This choice is implicit in the other decisions and actions that define our social world (for example, taking a job with a US employer, or using US consular services, or benefiting from the protections of US armed forces, and so on). If you seriously don't like how the US constitution organizes political processes, you should find another set of political institutions that capture your consent more effectively. That is, go elsewhere. Or, better yet, take the initiative to get the constitution amended. You may not know this, but the constitution even delineates a democratic process to change the democratic process itself when necessary. It's called constitutional amendment and historically it has been effective for correcting injustices like chattel slavery and the denial of suffrage to women. You can try to use it to abolish the income tax. By not acting to make a change you are in effect consenting to the status quo.

Second, your CONSENT IS REPRESENTED BY ROUTINE PARTICIPATION IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. Your voice is captured in the process of creating public policy through the people you chose to represent you in public office. This means that you actively consent to the laws that your representative subsequently votes for (as opposed to tacit consent to the democratic procedure itself). This consent not in any way implicit; it's actual consent even when the resulting law is not the one you wanted, and even when you don't vote. REPRESENTATION IS CONSENT. One of the better things about the US Federal system of government is that you are represented at many levels and in many ways: from city councils and mayors, to county supervisory boards, to state assemblies and governors, to Congress, the Senate and of course the President. This means you consent to all sorts of laws and policies, from those that regulate parking in your home town to those that set income tax rates at the national level. People who live in authoritarian societies (like China) have no such voice in the political process.

Thus if your point is that no government is just unless it's unanimous - that is, that each person directly supports each and every policy and law, such than only the laws that enjoy 100% endorsement from every citizen are enacted and enforced - then you are advocating for nothing more than a LAWLESS SOCIETY, one that even you would not want to live in. Why? Because in an enormous and diverse modern society like the United States it's impossible get unanimous direct consent to anything. In your world there would be no law at all, just a bunch of citizens rejecting every proposal that's not precisely what they desire.

For example, you don't like paying taxes? Fair enough. Maybe the next guy doesn't like Germans. You want a law to abolish taxes; he wants a law requiring the depatriation every person of German descent. Is the US government authoritarian because a majority disagrees with his asinine preference to deport Germans? Of course not. Is the the US government authoritarian just because a majority disagrees with your asinine preference to abolish taxes? Of course not. In both cases, all views were represented in the political process. That means that consent has been achieved at both the constitutional and the representative level. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean you're getting fucked over. It just means that you lost this round. The wonderful thing about democracy is that just because you lost today doesn't mean that you can't try again tomorrow. Don't believe me? Just look at those Tea Party dipshits. They are excellent examples of the non-authoritarian nature of a LIBERAL democracy. They don't like tax policy so they are working to get it changed through existing constitutional procedures. They ousted Bennett in Utah and Crist in Florida because they want better representation. If our government were authoritarian, they would have no ability to participate in politics in this way. Instead, the politicians would have ousted them.

So please, in lieu of asserting foolish things about democracies and power, why don't you read a book about how they actually function. I think it will save you from a great deal of future embarrassment.


Sex is fine between willing partners, but we call it rape when only one partner is willing and forces the act. Lets face it rape and consensual sex are very similar, but the consent issue makes one evil and the other a very nice thing.

This analogy is offensive. Use something else next time.

Sincerely, you call me close minded and a conservative. Wrong on both counts! I can not imagine that you'd call some one who wants a peace, non-violence, and nonaggression and who condemns aggression as small minded. I mean really! Don't you think that the apologists for aggression and force are the small minded one.

Actually, I called you stupid, which is very similar to but not quite the same thing as narrow minded. Conservatives don't like paying taxes and often claim that democracies are authoritarian to justify the selfishness. If you are not a conservative then you should worry because you sound exactly like one.
 
Just because majority of people vote for one of the lesser of two evils doesn't make aggression just. Democracy can't justify aggression. And besides, the system is totally broken and controlled by the power elite. Think to the most recent election in the US: you had a choice between a corporatist fascist warmonger with leftist rhetoric, or a corporatist fascist warmonger with rightist, nationalist rhetoric. No, sorry, I don't consent. I want that my relations be voluntary and I don't care to be a serf to a group of people that everyone generally agrees that are quite morally deprave: politicians.

And by the way, to show you that I am a true liberal, I am ok with you having all your relations being voluntary. I honestly don’t agree with your being aggressed against either. In that sense I take a transparent and universalist position.

You call those who are opposed to government selfish? Giving, last time I checked didn't require force. You can give and help without coercion. Actually, I'd go a step further to say all giving that is first based on theft and coercion lacks the moral essence that is often present in true giving. Thus, I mean to say: to steal and then give isn't charitable. It is just crime with an altruist veil. I mean, I can’t believe anybody is fooled by such charades.

You say: "First, your CONSENT IS CAPTURED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY."-, ah, no, I didn't consent, sorry.

You premise your arguments on government: a violently enforced territorial monopoly of taxation and adjudication as legit. It is difficult for me to engage you seriously as we have no common ground. This argument of "oh, by staying here you consent to the depredation of the state", well that assumes that an institution which can proclaim that it basically owns, to varying degrees, everything and everyone in its territory is legit. It is simple organized crime. So, I guess, if you are extorted money by the local gang, and if you keep your business open on their turf, then you consent, and there are no moral axioms broken, and hey they do provide a great service. They protect you from other gangs (think other states and terrorist organizations) and they promise not to through a brick through their window if you just keep paying up (taxes) (think you buy yourself out of long prison sentences, wow, what a great deal!). Aggression, even aggression from a long standing institution whose founding predates your or my own birth, can never be morally justified even by fraudulent schemes that make it seem as if the people govern themselves through democracy. Aggression is wrong, period.

Oh, I can't help but laugh at this: "protections of US armed forces" you mean the service of bombing random third world countries in order to justify more contracts for military contractors in order to get more campaign contractors for X Politician, right? Funny!

Get the constitution amended? You can't be serious! And, then you go on to suggest that there are constitutional limitations of the US Gov, that is laughable. There are none.

"Second, your CONSENT IS REPRESENTED BY ROUTINE PARTICIPATION IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS." I don't vote. It is silly to do so. Again, I want to be clear. I don't consent. I do consent to paying for meals in restaurants etc, but, I don't consent to gov. There is literally no important election in history that has ever been determined by one vote. Please, I don’t have the time, nor do I want to participate in such a silly fraud.

So, given that Hitler was democratically elected, and that at least the German Jews did vote in those very elections, then their extermination is just, right? Sure, not the polish Jews, they couldn't vote, but the German Jews did consent, so no problem right? Sure Hitler decreased the frequency of elections upon his initial election, but still the people voted him in, initially and he just acted as all politicians do, that is to consolidate power once getting in office. This is a universal trait of politicians, but most don't go about this as directly as the Nazis did.

"then you are advocating for nothing more than a LAWLESS SOCIETY, one that even you would not want to live in." No, I advocate a stateless society where law is natural law based on private property, starting with ownership of one’s own body. Such societies were seen in medieval Ireland and Iceland. Order is natural but it is a difficult point to appreciate without understanding economics and human action. Try reading the writings of Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard.

But, to be clear, I don't think that government based on unanimous consent is a workable scenario. I don’t support such a scheme. You don't need unanimous consent to have a functional society; you just need a matrix of voluntary interactions/exchanges between two or more willing parties, ie a market/private property society. The market determines the optimum level of diversity and standardization facilitated by the pricing system. Think to DVD's, the market demands diversity in content (it’s not the same movie on every disk) and strick uniformity/standardization of physical form (disk, there are no square or cube DVD's). Yet, there are no laws making such demands of the manufactures of DVD's. See, my friend, order is natural and aggression is not needed.

The hypothetical German-phobe you speak of should have full freedom to non-aggressively disassociate himself from Germans and keep them off his property. But he does not have any just claim at limiting others' association with them outside of his property. That is natural law. It is realistic and moderate, and voluntaryist. I discriminate in such ways all the time. As, I moved to Miami because I like Hispanics a lot. That is to discriminate against Germans, as I could live among them. And I do feel quite ok about my choice.

"Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean you're getting fucked over." what about the German Jews circa 1944, where they screwed over? Not according to your "democracy makes any act of government ok" mantra. Or, what about all the Venezuelans who have had their property stolen and their access to the free-press abridged by Chavez? I guess that's ok because they democratically consented by voting for or against him or even by not voting. Democratically justified aggression is just aggression with a little apologetics thrown in.

You say: "It just means that you lost this round." Hum, things would have been no better with McCain that socialist warmonger.

Also, I noticed that your response to my analogy involving sex was very weak, I’d be interested to see you actually engage the intellectual substance of my argument, instead of attacking it’s form.

Thanks,

 
Oh for the love of everything - stop with the intellectual masturbation. Throwing in some clever phrases and versions of utopia is just putting lipstick on the pig. This "you just need a matrix of voluntary interactions/exchanges between two or more willing parties, ie a market/private property society" - please enlighten me - when and where did this ever occur or work?

But I do find it interesting that you didn't answer Mini's questions - if you find citizenship so offensive - why did you willingly obtain a new German passport? And why don't you renounce your US citizenship since you find it so onerous?

And comparing citizenship to rape is offensive on every level. There is no reason to discuss it further.
 
Dear City Girl, Consent is consent, that is what I meant to bring across. But I am sorry that my analogy offended you.

"This "you just need a matrix of voluntary interactions/exchanges between two or more willing parties, ie a market/private property society" - please enlighten me - when and where did this ever occur or work?"

Well, it worked at the Centros de Trueque during the collapse of Government during the 2002 period of Argentine history. And you see it a flea markets every weekend, and you see it when a boyfriend/girlfriend couple spend time together, as it is just a coming together of people, on mutually voluntary terms, that's all. So you see it all the time and it works. Aggression and oppression don't work.

And yes, very good dismissal of my thoughts by calling it intellectual masturbation.

But, I am still interested in Choripan's response.
 
Thanks brandwach for making me the second most long-winded person on BAExpats.org. Apparently you are the only person in Buenos Aires with more time on his hands than me.

brandwach said:
Just because majority of people vote for one of the lesser of two evils doesn't make aggression just. Democracy can't justify aggression.

What exactly is the aggression that you're talking about? What aggression do you feel from the Federal government from your comfortable home in Miami? Are you posting to this forum from the Dade county tax evaders prison? Show me this aggression. Please note that the obligation to pay your taxes, like the requirement to pay for any service consumed, is no more aggressive than your boss being required to pay your salary each month for the work you have performed.

And by the way, to show you that I am a true liberal, I am ok with you having all your relations being voluntary. I honestly don’t agree with your being aggressed against either. In that sense I take a transparent and universalist position.
This makes no sense. Not sure whether the problem here is linguistic or conceptual. I'm guessing it's a little of both.

You call those who are opposed to government selfish?

Not at all. You just made that up. I called those who consume government resources and then bitch about taxes selfish. That would, apparently, include you. By the way, I also called them stupid.

Actually, I'd go a step further to say all giving that is first based on theft and coercion lacks the moral essence that is often present in true giving.

What in heaven's name are you talking about?

It is difficult for me to engage you seriously as we have no common ground.

Actually, our common ground, assuming you're not misrepresenting yourself in this forum, is that we are both American citizens who enjoy the benefits of living in a relatively free democratic society. Our difference is that I believe it's important to pay for that government service, whereas you want to consume it while others pay for it.

It is simple organized crime.

Really? When was the last time you voted for a mob boss? When was the last time you felt free to run for president of your local crime syndicate? There is no representation in organized crime. Do you honestly not see the difference? Or are you simply making up even more bullshit?

Oh, I can't help but laugh at this: "protections of US armed forces" you mean the service of bombing random third world countries in order to justify more contracts for military contractors in order to get more campaign contractors for X Politician, right? Funny!

You are indeed partially right. And yet the minute a terrorist attacks comfy Miami you'll fall in love with the military, just like the rest of the right-wingers in America.

Get the constitution amended? You can't be serious! And, then you go on to suggest that there are constitutional limitations of the US Gov, that is laughable. There are none.

Ok, so you simply don't read anything. I assume you oppose the recent health care legislation? So if the Supreme Court overturns the law on grounds that it's not constitutional will you still say that there are no constitutional limits on the US government? It's absurd to assert that the Constitution does not limit the actions of government: the Constitution *only* limits the actions of government. You seem to indulge your right to free speech more than the average conservative bonehead. What do you think protects this right from government efforts to control it?

I don't vote. It is silly to do so. Again, I want to be clear. I don't consent. I do consent to paying for meals in restaurants etc, but, I don't consent to gov. There is literally no important election in history that has ever been determined by one vote. Please, I don’t have the time, nor do I want to participate in such a silly fraud.

More evidence that you're a serious fucking moron. Apparently consent to you means "getting my way all the time" and if not you'll take your ball and go home (i.e., not vote). You sound like a pathetic whining adolescent sad that his mommy won't let him eat ice cream before every meal. I'm oppressed! you scream. I hate you mommy! you go on. Then you sit in your room, pouting, while everyone else tries to figure out a reasonable way to live with one another. What you are is a fool.

So, given that Hitler was democratically elected, and that at least the German Jews did vote in those very elections, then their extermination is just, right? Sure, not the polish Jews, they couldn't vote, but the German Jews did consent, so no problem right? Sure Hitler decreased the frequency of elections upon his initial election, but still the people voted him in, initially and he just acted as all politicians do, that is to consolidate power once getting in office. This is a universal trait of politicians, but most don't go about this as directly as the Nazis did.

Oh my god. It's inevitable that the right wing loser ham-handedly pulls out the Nazi Germany analogy to legitimate his sad desire to free-load on someone else's hard work and money! Apparently you did not read the wikipedia article I suggested. If you had, you would have learned that liberal democracy is liberal democracy, and that authoritarianism is what the National Socialists established after the Weimar republic failed. Recall that the link to the article was to save yourself from future embarrassment. Apparently my effort was to no avail.

No, I advocate a stateless society where law is natural law based on private property, starting with ownership of one’s own body. Such societies were seen in medieval Ireland and Iceland. Order is natural but it is a difficult point to appreciate without understanding economics and human action.

Sounds like you should move to Somalia, one of the few stateless societies in the world. I'm sure you'll love the, um, lack of "state aggression" there. Also, the weather is better in Somalia than either Ireland or Iceland.

you just need a matrix of voluntary interactions/exchanges between two or more willing parties, ie a market/private property society.

As citygirl pointed out, this just makes you sound crazy. I'm hoping it just a communication issue. If you really believe this, then you need help, friend.

I discriminate in such ways all the time.

Why am I not surprised by this?

what about the German Jews circa 1944, where they screwed over? Not according to your "democracy makes any act of government ok" mantra.

Dear god, you can't be serious. My point was that LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES, like the kind we have in America, are not authoritarian. By 1944 Germany was long removed from being a democracy of any kind. Indeed, it had become an authoritarian form of government!

Also, I noticed that your response to my analogy involving sex was very weak, I’d be interested to see you actually engage the intellectual substance of my argument, instead of attacking it’s form.

The sex analogy, especially when using rape to make a rhetorical point, makes you sound like a violent pervert. Since you are still learning English, trust me on this one: rape analogies are offensive. When you use them, people will think you are bad and stop reading. If you want to people to take you seriously, act like a grown-up who understands the seriousness of things like rape and genocide and authoritarianism. Don't use them to make pitiful argumentative points. Instead, if you want to critique liberal democracy, then talk about it on its own terms. And do your reading! Otherwise you not only seem like a pervert; you also come across as intellectually shallow.
 
brandwach said:
"This "you just need a matrix of voluntary interactions/exchanges between two or more willing parties, ie a market/private property society" - please enlighten me - when and where did this ever occur or work?"

Well, it worked at the Centros de Trueque during the collapse of Government during the 2002 period of Argentine history. And you see it a flea markets every weekend, and you see it when a boyfriend/girlfriend couple spend time together, as it is just a coming together of people, on mutually voluntary terms, that's all. So you see it all the time and it works. Aggression and oppression don't work.

On a serious note - I am assuming you see the fallacy in what you're discussing. In that flea market - what do you think the seller is looking for in exchange for goods? Money. And who prints and provides a currency - oh right - a government.

And I can't assume you are seriously equating an interpersonal relationship to the services provided by a government.

I am asking for concrete evidence that this "utopia" of which you speak could exist on a broad scale? Oh right - there are none. Because it's an intellectual fantasy.

And on a less serious note - this "a boyfriend/girlfriend couple spend time together, as it is just a coming together of people, on mutually voluntary terms, that's all. So you see it all the time and it works. Aggression and oppression don't work." - I'm assuming you haven't dated a lot? B/C aggression and oppression are pretty constant facets of a relationship:p:D

And Lee - I knew I could count on you to enjoy the masturbation comment;)


 
Lee said:
"Intellectual Masturbation"

If it feels good do it!

You wouldn't be the first person to rub one off while reading my posts. Sadly, the intellectual side of the masturbation equation seems to be missing from your side of this political argument.
 


No, to be clear, I pay my taxes because I am scared of the government. And for the aggression that you look for, just look up Irving Schiff on Wikipedia. And yes, I am not rotting in prison because I am more practical than I am commited to ideological consistency between thought and deed, ie, I pay up cause I am scared!

Please note that the obligation to pay your taxes, like the requirement to pay for any service consumed, is no more aggressive than your boss being required to pay your salary each month for the work you have performed.”-the difference is Consent, remember the rape verse sex scenario? It seems very clear the distinction, to me.

About the flea market: Real money is gold and silver and other commodity moneies that predate all government monies, fiat or metal-backed. Government is not needed for money production. In fact their centrally planning the money supply in collusion with government-favored banks is what causes the Boom-bust economic cycles like the one we just experienced in the US and the one experienced in ARG in 2002, etc. Look up Austrian School of Economics Business Cycle Theory, to understand this better. Or just read Murray Rothbard’s Book “America’s great Depression.” It’s a good read and lays it out clearly.

“I am asking for concrete evidence that this "utopia" of which you speak could exist on a broad scale? Oh right - there are none. Because it's an intellectual fantasy.” Statism is utopian, I am for a moderate solution that is simply not supporting insititutions of aggression and relying on voluntary transactions and peace/nonviolence etc.

Where has it worked: look up stateless societies in medieval Ireland and Iceland. Also, on a more incremental basis, appreciate given situations like quality of life comparisons between S. and N. Korea. They are otherwise culturally and ethnically, etc identical, with one significant distinction: size and scope of government. Also, this applies to Former E. and W. Germanies. These aren’t perfect examples but they offer some insight. Less government the better.

Quote:
And by the way, to show you that I am a true liberal, I am ok with you having all your relations being voluntary. I honestly don’t agree with your being aggressed against either. In that sense I take a transparent and universalist position.

This makes no sense. Not sure whether the problem here is linguistic or conceptual. I'm guessing it's a little of both.”

What I meant to say, is that you get your way and I get mine, in a stateless society, that is as long as our “way” isn’t coercive. Like it’s all about Live and let live. Where as State is force and aggression, and doesn’t allow you to have your way.

“Not at all. You just made that up. I called those who consume government resources and then bitch about taxes selfish. That would, apparently, include you. By the way, I also called them stupid.” I am forced to pay, that is the crux of the issue. But, yes, those who voluntarily receive a service and then refused to pay the pre-arranged market price, yes, that is short-sighted and selfish. I agree. But once again the issue is consent.



Actually, I'd go a step further to say all giving that is first based on theft and coercion lacks the moral essence that is often present in true giving.

What in heaven's name are you talking about?”

Like free lunches for poor kids provided by the gov. On the face of it, giving poor kids food, is pretty much a good thing and possibly a moral activity. I sincerely believe in generosity. But, that gov has first stolen the money from the productive and innocent masses and it then gives to children result in the moral bankruptcy of the activity. The first step to doing good in the world is ceasing to do harm, and that axiom government violates at every turn. The moral act isn’t built upon an initial act of depravity.

“Actually, our common ground, assuming you're not misrepresenting yourself in this forum, is that we are both American citizens who enjoy the benefits of living in a relatively free democratic society. Our difference is that I believe it's important to pay for that government service, whereas you want to consume it while others pay for it.”

I never said, that, now really! I don’t think government should exist. So, I can’t possibly think that I am entitled to mooch off of it and be a tax-parasite. Those two positions are mutually exclusive and I adopt the former.

“When was the last time you voted for a mob boss?” Well I don’t vote, but I’d say that McCain and Obama are even more lowly than Mob-bosses. Mob bosses are more honest and insult your intelligence less. And not voting is just fine. It has the same end result as seen from the individual’s perspective as voting.

“You are indeed partially right. And yet the minute a terrorist attacks comfy Miami you'll fall in love with the military, just like the rest of the right-wingers in America”

No, I’ll blame the Millitary industrial complex and the US empire (those hundreds of bases in all those countries) if Miami is attacted by terrorists. Look up what Ron Paul has to say about National Security.


Hey, another thing Choripan, I have not called you any profane names. It is not ok to do that to me. Please, be respectful. And you don’t need to get so personal. I am trying to have a grown-up intellectual debate with you. Spare the insults.

Also, I am not a right-winger in the least.


This distinction of liberal democracy and authoritarian regime is a distinction of degree and not of kind. Both are aggressive that that is the important point.

For a more eloquent rendition of what I mean to say see what Lysander Spooner says about Gov in this quote taken from “no treason”


But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves "the government," are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.
In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed.
 
Back
Top