Without Government...

2456

Comments

  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,105
    Without government...

    Who would put lead in the water?
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,016
    unsung said:
    The Dave Matthews Band's former driver has found new work. Good for him
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,016
    unsung said:
    Probably DuPont and 3M
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 7,412
    Jason P said:

    unsung said:
    Probably DuPont and 3M
    And Massey and Chesapeake and Rex and Koch Ind. and so on and so on...
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 1,987
    you didn’t build that

    What’s sad about this is that President Obama’s statement of the principle needs to be repeated over and over again, time without end.
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • unsung said:

    Do you actually think that the President runs this country?

    Please tell us who does.

    With believable, reliable, and verifiable links to backup your assertion.

    Thanks
    I didn't think you'd get an answer to this question.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 5,036
    unsung said:
    While the magnitude of the response in this case seems out of proportion, I don't have any problem with there being regulations around things like the preparation and storage of food for sale. There can be serious or fatal consequences from improperly prepared and stored food, and this isn't even veggies from a garden, this is raw seafood. If you're selling food, you're running a food sales business. She's not being completely honest in the interview, either, when she says she is "giving it away" or "trading". "Giving away" something implies that the receiver doesn't have to pay for it. "Trading" for money is called selling something.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 7,412

    unsung said:
    While the magnitude of the response in this case seems out of proportion, I don't have any problem with there being regulations around things like the preparation and storage of food for sale. There can be serious or fatal consequences from improperly prepared and stored food, and this isn't even veggies from a garden, this is raw seafood. If you're selling food, you're running a food sales business. She's not being completely honest in the interview, either, when she says she is "giving it away" or "trading". "Giving away" something implies that the receiver doesn't have to pay for it. "Trading" for money is called selling something.
    Exactly.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,105
    Without government...

    Who would pay teachers to sit around and do nothing?

    Yep, from 2009, and yep it still goes on.


    http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/06/23/700-nyc-teachers-are-paid-to-do-nothing.html
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 5,036
    unsung said:

    Without government...

    Who would pay teachers to sit around and do nothing?

    Yep, from 2009, and yep it still goes on.


    http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/06/23/700-nyc-teachers-are-paid-to-do-nothing.html

    Because of government? No, because of a legally binding contract between an employer and employees. I agree it's shitty; don't get me started on teacher's unions. But I'm not going to blame the government for that one. If you go down that road, you can essentially blame the government for any of the world's ills..... which some may wish to do but frankly it seems a bit of a stretch.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,105
    Without government...


    image
  • unsung said:

    Without government...


    image

    What's your point? Churches are above the law?
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,105
    Without government...

    Who would force the homeless to throw away coats and food?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-28/unhappy-holidays-houston-police-force-homeless-people-throw-away-food
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 4,794
    Can you find a more valid source instead of zerohedge?
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,105

    Can you find a more valid source instead of zerohedge?

    Can you find a more valid source instead of zerohedge?

    CNN? Oh, that won't work.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,105

    Can you find a more valid source instead of zerohedge?

    Typical liberal tactic. Can't argue the story so try to discredit the source.
  • unsung said:

    Without government...


    image

    Aren't there overpasses in Atlanta?
    08/29/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 6,629
    unsung said:

    Without government...

    Who would force the homeless to throw away coats and food?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-28/unhappy-holidays-houston-police-force-homeless-people-throw-away-food

    Have societies not naturally and organically, in all circumstances that I can think of, converged upon the need for governance? Without government, how do you prevent a group of people from implementing some form of societal structure with a hierarchy, rules, punishments, checks and balances? In addition, how can a species who have shown themselves susceptible to corruption based on fundamental human flaws such as greed and hedonism successfully exist without a governing body? It seems that with or without government - human traits are the problem, not our methods of organizing our societies.

    Without government, what do you honestly believe would happen in this situation? Would the city's population simply encourage charity, promote Houston as a safe haven for homeless people, and smile when the throngs more flock in, ecstatic about the opportunity to buy them clothing and food? What would happen to Houston's tourism industry? How about the safety and security for the wealthy - with the holders of wealth outnumbered by those void of wealth, what's to prevent the proletariat from rising up to simply seize what the wealthy have forcefully?
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 4,794
    unsung said:

    Can you find a more valid source instead of zerohedge?

    Typical liberal tactic. Can't argue the story so try to discredit the source.
    It has to be an actual story, first. Zerohedge has no credibilty. That page just tells you what you want to hear.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,105
    benjs said:

    unsung said:

    Without government...

    Who would force the homeless to throw away coats and food?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-28/unhappy-holidays-houston-police-force-homeless-people-throw-away-food

    Have societies not naturally and organically, in all circumstances that I can think of, converged upon the need for governance? Without government, how do you prevent a group of people from implementing some form of societal structure with a hierarchy, rules, punishments, checks and balances? In addition, how can a species who have shown themselves susceptible to corruption based on fundamental human flaws such as greed and hedonism successfully exist without a governing body? It seems that with or without government - human traits are the problem, not our methods of organizing our societies.

    Without government, what do you honestly believe would happen in this situation? Would the city's population simply encourage charity, promote Houston as a safe haven for homeless people, and smile when the throngs more flock in, ecstatic about the opportunity to buy them clothing and food? What would happen to Houston's tourism industry? How about the safety and security for the wealthy - with the holders of wealth outnumbered by those void of wealth, what's to prevent the proletariat from rising up to simply seize what the wealthy have forcefully?
    So people cant be trusted to govern themselves so they get people to govern them.

    Your last sentence...like government does?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 5,036
    unsung said:

    benjs said:

    unsung said:

    Without government...

    Who would force the homeless to throw away coats and food?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-28/unhappy-holidays-houston-police-force-homeless-people-throw-away-food

    Have societies not naturally and organically, in all circumstances that I can think of, converged upon the need for governance? Without government, how do you prevent a group of people from implementing some form of societal structure with a hierarchy, rules, punishments, checks and balances? In addition, how can a species who have shown themselves susceptible to corruption based on fundamental human flaws such as greed and hedonism successfully exist without a governing body? It seems that with or without government - human traits are the problem, not our methods of organizing our societies.

    Without government, what do you honestly believe would happen in this situation? Would the city's population simply encourage charity, promote Houston as a safe haven for homeless people, and smile when the throngs more flock in, ecstatic about the opportunity to buy them clothing and food? What would happen to Houston's tourism industry? How about the safety and security for the wealthy - with the holders of wealth outnumbered by those void of wealth, what's to prevent the proletariat from rising up to simply seize what the wealthy have forcefully?
    So people cant be trusted to govern themselves so they get people to govern them.

    Your last sentence...like government does?
    Can't be trusted to govern themselves? On the whole, probably not, but that's not really the issue. Left to their own devices almost all people do not govern themselves; they naturally congregate into larger groups which then naturally form into governing-type structures. It doesn't really matter how that structure evolves - family groupings with a patriarch (or, less commonly, matriarch), some sort of hereditary ruling structure, seizing power by force or arms, elections, or what have you. People just naturally do that. People have asked you time and again to point to a successful society without some form of governance and, to the best of my knowledge, you haven't done so. That's because you can't. They don't exist.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,105
    Ha, I am looking for a successful society that exists without the threat of force of which you and others, to my knowledge, haven't provided. If your system works so well then make it voluntary. That is what I want, the elimination of the State. Of course people will organize, but it doesn't mean that they will start killing because you aren't paying your fees. That is what we have now.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 7,412
    unsung said:

    Ha, I am looking for a successful society that exists without the threat of force of which you and others, to my knowledge, haven't provided. If your system works so well then make it voluntary. That is what I want, the elimination of the State. Of course people will organize, but it doesn't mean that they will start killing because you aren't paying your fees. That is what we have now.

    That's called a utopia, and it doesn't exist.

    There is always threat of force, you brandish it gleefully around this site. You think that citizens should exist under threat of force from each other, but not under threat of force from the rule of law? I don't see how that makes any logical sense.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 6,629
    unsung said:

    Ha, I am looking for a successful society that exists without the threat of force of which you and others, to my knowledge, haven't provided. If your system works so well then make it voluntary. That is what I want, the elimination of the State. Of course people will organize, but it doesn't mean that they will start killing because you aren't paying your fees. That is what we have now.

    I'm not sure how what we have today is a society where the people "kill because you aren't paying your fees". Of course we have looming threat of consequence for prescribed actions, but that's specifically to provide a basic level of security so that a society can be perpetuated. If a society doesn't have these threats of consequences, what prevents a person from doing what is best for him or herself, instead of the collective? If I am contemplating seizing your house simply because your house is nicer, I want it, and I can - then why won't I? And if I can align myself with more people who simply don't care like myself, then my group, a small sliver of society, will simply keep seizing more and more power (via what ever currency - land, resources, liquid or non-liquid assets - has value). We will coordinate to offer each other mutually beneficial arrangements to disproportionately take, and within long - what you will have is the same wealth inequality today. As I said before, it's because the catalyst for these inequalities is not government - it is humans themselves.

    As for the proposal for a voluntary government - that doesn't work either. If I have the choice of being beholden to the rules of the collective (and not the mandate), why would I opt into checks and balances when they don't align with decisions that will benefit exclusively me? And how will a society be expected to work when I've sworn not to murder you for your land, yet my neighbour hasn't? And why do you figure that people won't start killing because they don't pay their fees (and I assume by those you mean taxes)? And who will pay for the infrastructure when no one pays their fees, and an individual never procures enough funds to maintain the infrastructure which they themselves use? How about education - should each person receive a radically different education on the same topics because they're not regulated? Which surgeon will you go to - Doctor Hibbert who received a Bachelor Degree at "Yale Regulated University", or Doctor Nick who received one at "Ben's Pretty Cool Place to Learn"? What if all you can afford is Doctor Nick? These are just a few things that immediately jump to mind, but I know there are more.

    I can't fathom how you can expect a society to organize without conditioning its citizens by providing no consequences for 'bad' actions. This historically has always (again, as far as I know) accompanied the convergence of a society to a governed state, for the simple reason that it is the most effective way to mandate that a populace behave in ways best for the basic safety and security demands of the populace over the individual.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 7,412
    benjs said:

    unsung said:

    Ha, I am looking for a successful society that exists without the threat of force of which you and others, to my knowledge, haven't provided. If your system works so well then make it voluntary. That is what I want, the elimination of the State. Of course people will organize, but it doesn't mean that they will start killing because you aren't paying your fees. That is what we have now.

    I'm not sure how what we have today is a society where the people "kill because you aren't paying your fees". Of course we have looming threat of consequence for prescribed actions, but that's specifically to provide a basic level of security so that a society can be perpetuated. If a society doesn't have these threats of consequences, what prevents a person from doing what is best for him or herself, instead of the collective? If I am contemplating seizing your house simply because your house is nicer, I want it, and I can - then why won't I? And if I can align myself with more people who simply don't care like myself, then my group, a small sliver of society, will simply keep seizing more and more power (via what ever currency - land, resources, liquid or non-liquid assets - has value). We will coordinate to offer each other mutually beneficial arrangements to disproportionately take, and within long - what you will have is the same wealth inequality today. As I said before, it's because the catalyst for these inequalities is not government - it is humans themselves.

    As for the proposal for a voluntary government - that doesn't work either. If I have the choice of being beholden to the rules of the collective (and not the mandate), why would I opt into checks and balances when they don't align with decisions that will benefit exclusively me? And how will a society be expected to work when I've sworn not to murder you for your land, yet my neighbour hasn't? And why do you figure that people won't start killing because they don't pay their fees (and I assume by those you mean taxes)? And who will pay for the infrastructure when no one pays their fees, and an individual never procures enough funds to maintain the infrastructure which they themselves use? How about education - should each person receive a radically different education on the same topics because they're not regulated? Which surgeon will you go to - Doctor Hibbert who received a Bachelor Degree at "Yale Regulated University", or Doctor Nick who received one at "Ben's Pretty Cool Place to Learn"? What if all you can afford is Doctor Nick? These are just a few things that immediately jump to mind, but I know there are more.

    I can't fathom how you can expect a society to organize without conditioning its citizens by providing no consequences for 'bad' actions. This historically has always (again, as far as I know) accompanied the convergence of a society to a governed state, for the simple reason that it is the most effective way to mandate that a populace behave in ways best for the basic safety and security demands of the populace over the individual.
    An excellent post, but you are wasting your time, Unsung doesn't debate with bootlicking statists.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,105
    edited December 2016
    rgambs said:

    benjs said:

    unsung said:

    Ha, I am looking for a successful society that exists without the threat of force of which you and others, to my knowledge, haven't provided. If your system works so well then make it voluntary. That is what I want, the elimination of the State. Of course people will organize, but it doesn't mean that they will start killing because you aren't paying your fees. That is what we have now.

    I'm not sure how what we have today is a society where the people "kill because you aren't paying your fees". Of course we have looming threat of consequence for prescribed actions, but that's specifically to provide a basic level of security so that a society can be perpetuated. If a society doesn't have these threats of consequences, what prevents a person from doing what is best for him or herself, instead of the collective? If I am contemplating seizing your house simply because your house is nicer, I want it, and I can - then why won't I? And if I can align myself with more people who simply don't care like myself, then my group, a small sliver of society, will simply keep seizing more and more power (via what ever currency - land, resources, liquid or non-liquid assets - has value). We will coordinate to offer each other mutually beneficial arrangements to disproportionately take, and within long - what you will have is the same wealth inequality today. As I said before, it's because the catalyst for these inequalities is not government - it is humans themselves.

    As for the proposal for a voluntary government - that doesn't work either. If I have the choice of being beholden to the rules of the collective (and not the mandate), why would I opt into checks and balances when they don't align with decisions that will benefit exclusively me? And how will a society be expected to work when I've sworn not to murder you for your land, yet my neighbour hasn't? And why do you figure that people won't start killing because they don't pay their fees (and I assume by those you mean taxes)? And who will pay for the infrastructure when no one pays their fees, and an individual never procures enough funds to maintain the infrastructure which they themselves use? How about education - should each person receive a radically different education on the same topics because they're not regulated? Which surgeon will you go to - Doctor Hibbert who received a Bachelor Degree at "Yale Regulated University", or Doctor Nick who received one at "Ben's Pretty Cool Place to Learn"? What if all you can afford is Doctor Nick? These are just a few things that immediately jump to mind, but I know there are more.

    I can't fathom how you can expect a society to organize without conditioning its citizens by providing no consequences for 'bad' actions. This historically has always (again, as far as I know) accompanied the convergence of a society to a governed state, for the simple reason that it is the most effective way to mandate that a populace behave in ways best for the basic safety and security demands of the populace over the individual.
    An excellent post, but you are wasting your time, Unsung doesn't debate with bootlicking statists.
    Why would I? Clearly you'll never turn your back on your God.

    Your society exists because of the people in it, some people do need to be ruled.

    Mine can't exist because of your voters.

    Currently these mall riots are the rage, those wouldn't happen in my society but they are a plague in yours. These people can't function with civility, nor can they be negotiated with.
    Post edited by unsung on
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 5,036
    unsung said:

    rgambs said:

    benjs said:

    unsung said:

    Ha, I am looking for a successful society that exists without the threat of force of which you and others, to my knowledge, haven't provided. If your system works so well then make it voluntary. That is what I want, the elimination of the State. Of course people will organize, but it doesn't mean that they will start killing because you aren't paying your fees. That is what we have now.

    I'm not sure how what we have today is a society where the people "kill because you aren't paying your fees". Of course we have looming threat of consequence for prescribed actions, but that's specifically to provide a basic level of security so that a society can be perpetuated. If a society doesn't have these threats of consequences, what prevents a person from doing what is best for him or herself, instead of the collective? If I am contemplating seizing your house simply because your house is nicer, I want it, and I can - then why won't I? And if I can align myself with more people who simply don't care like myself, then my group, a small sliver of society, will simply keep seizing more and more power (via what ever currency - land, resources, liquid or non-liquid assets - has value). We will coordinate to offer each other mutually beneficial arrangements to disproportionately take, and within long - what you will have is the same wealth inequality today. As I said before, it's because the catalyst for these inequalities is not government - it is humans themselves.

    As for the proposal for a voluntary government - that doesn't work either. If I have the choice of being beholden to the rules of the collective (and not the mandate), why would I opt into checks and balances when they don't align with decisions that will benefit exclusively me? And how will a society be expected to work when I've sworn not to murder you for your land, yet my neighbour hasn't? And why do you figure that people won't start killing because they don't pay their fees (and I assume by those you mean taxes)? And who will pay for the infrastructure when no one pays their fees, and an individual never procures enough funds to maintain the infrastructure which they themselves use? How about education - should each person receive a radically different education on the same topics because they're not regulated? Which surgeon will you go to - Doctor Hibbert who received a Bachelor Degree at "Yale Regulated University", or Doctor Nick who received one at "Ben's Pretty Cool Place to Learn"? What if all you can afford is Doctor Nick? These are just a few things that immediately jump to mind, but I know there are more.

    I can't fathom how you can expect a society to organize without conditioning its citizens by providing no consequences for 'bad' actions. This historically has always (again, as far as I know) accompanied the convergence of a society to a governed state, for the simple reason that it is the most effective way to mandate that a populace behave in ways best for the basic safety and security demands of the populace over the individual.
    An excellent post, but you are wasting your time, Unsung doesn't debate with bootlicking statists.
    Why would I? Clearly you'll never turn your back on your God.

    Your society exists because of the people in it, some people do need to be ruled.

    Mine can't exist because of your voters.

    Currently these mall riots are the rage, those wouldn't happen in my society but they are a plague in yours. These people can't function with civility, nor can they be negotiated with.
    That makes it a little clearer. There are only certain people you want in your society. The others, those who can't function with civility or be negotiated with, are excluded. Maybe through threat of force.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 6,629
    unsung said:

    rgambs said:

    benjs said:

    unsung said:

    Ha, I am looking for a successful society that exists without the threat of force of which you and others, to my knowledge, haven't provided. If your system works so well then make it voluntary. That is what I want, the elimination of the State. Of course people will organize, but it doesn't mean that they will start killing because you aren't paying your fees. That is what we have now.

    I'm not sure how what we have today is a society where the people "kill because you aren't paying your fees". Of course we have looming threat of consequence for prescribed actions, but that's specifically to provide a basic level of security so that a society can be perpetuated. If a society doesn't have these threats of consequences, what prevents a person from doing what is best for him or herself, instead of the collective? If I am contemplating seizing your house simply because your house is nicer, I want it, and I can - then why won't I? And if I can align myself with more people who simply don't care like myself, then my group, a small sliver of society, will simply keep seizing more and more power (via what ever currency - land, resources, liquid or non-liquid assets - has value). We will coordinate to offer each other mutually beneficial arrangements to disproportionately take, and within long - what you will have is the same wealth inequality today. As I said before, it's because the catalyst for these inequalities is not government - it is humans themselves.

    As for the proposal for a voluntary government - that doesn't work either. If I have the choice of being beholden to the rules of the collective (and not the mandate), why would I opt into checks and balances when they don't align with decisions that will benefit exclusively me? And how will a society be expected to work when I've sworn not to murder you for your land, yet my neighbour hasn't? And why do you figure that people won't start killing because they don't pay their fees (and I assume by those you mean taxes)? And who will pay for the infrastructure when no one pays their fees, and an individual never procures enough funds to maintain the infrastructure which they themselves use? How about education - should each person receive a radically different education on the same topics because they're not regulated? Which surgeon will you go to - Doctor Hibbert who received a Bachelor Degree at "Yale Regulated University", or Doctor Nick who received one at "Ben's Pretty Cool Place to Learn"? What if all you can afford is Doctor Nick? These are just a few things that immediately jump to mind, but I know there are more.

    I can't fathom how you can expect a society to organize without conditioning its citizens by providing no consequences for 'bad' actions. This historically has always (again, as far as I know) accompanied the convergence of a society to a governed state, for the simple reason that it is the most effective way to mandate that a populace behave in ways best for the basic safety and security demands of the populace over the individual.
    An excellent post, but you are wasting your time, Unsung doesn't debate with bootlicking statists.
    Why would I? Clearly you'll never turn your back on your God.

    Your society exists because of the people in it, some people do need to be ruled.

    Mine can't exist because of your voters.

    Currently these mall riots are the rage, those wouldn't happen in my society but they are a plague in yours. These people can't function with civility, nor can they be negotiated with.
    I thought I laid out several reasonable scenarios above for why your proposed society can't exist (and it's not because of "our voters"). In spite of the mathematics, science, and empirical evidence showing that acting in favour of the collective over one's self has a greater risk * reward upside potential over time, our fundamental flaws like greed and hedonism have time and time again shown the lengths that humans will go to, to obtain marginal personal gain fraught with risk, over slightly less collective gain with significantly less risk. This is not about my society versus your society - this is about human characteristics which will not change over time, regardless of the organization of a group.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Sign In or Register to comment.