Freedom Vs. Security

OK, here goes:

It has been said that in any society, but especially one like our own, the greatest tension exists between our security and our freedom.

On the one hand, our society is built on the premise that there are certain rights and liberties that a person has that no other person has the right to infringe upon. Whether you call them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or speech, press, religion, and assembly, our society is built upon the notion that people have certain rights that cannot, under any circumstances, be violated.

On the other hand, if people are given too much leeway there is more opportunity for somebody to set forth a course of action to eliminate those rights. If people are given free reign to do whatever they please, then eventually someone will use their freedoms to deprive others of their freedoms, and indeed take down the very government that was put in place to protect those freedoms.

So the tension, maintain some, is that in order to guarantee the long term success of a society which maintains a certain level of liberty for its people, those people must give up some of their liberties. If people could do whatever they pleased, eventually someone would organize a revolution that would topple our freedom-supporting and protect it with one that is less liberty minded. So how much freedom must we give up in order to be safe and secure? What must we sacrifice to protect that which we have gained?

To avoid sending this debate one way or another, I will refrain from posting my opinion until things get going here. I suspect that many of you already know what I am going to say on the issue.

So there it is: How much freedom must we give up to guarantee our own security?

------------------
Jason R Remy

"Open mindedness is not the same thing as empty mindedness."
-- John Dewey Democracy and Education (1916)

I guess I'd need to know what you mean by your use of the word, "freedom."

For example, if you'd used the word "rights" instead, well, as they say: Your right to swing your hand ends where my nose begins. In other words, the term is defined as not interfering with the rights of others. So I need to know if you are using "freedom" in the same way or not.

Freedom as defined by Dave is much more important than security. If our government were to take certain basic freedoms such as speech or privacy away, then they will stop at nothing. Without freedoms of speech or press the government could engage in any sort of activity without caring about public opinion. If we are limited in these then our government would change form from our current democratic type to a "Big Brother" oriented type. Orwell's model of a totally secure society in 1984 frightened me more than anything else I have ever read. If someone can read that book (if you have not then do so) and still support a secure society in which no one has any freedom, then we as a society of are doomed.

For example, if you'd used the word "rights" instead, well, as they say: Your right to swing your
hand ends where my nose begins. In other words, the term is defined as not interfering with the
rights of others. So I need to know if you are using "freedom" in the same way or not.

Perhaps I am. Perhaps I am not. That is some measure of what we are discussing here. At a more "metaphorical" level, at what point to we decide when your actions begin to interfere with my actions. When does one person's right to smoke begin to interfere with another's right to breathe clean air? When does my right to privacy begin to interfere with your right to not get blown up by terrorists? Where does my right to free speech begin to interfere with your right not to get beat up by the people I insite? Where does my right to practice my religion begin to interfere with your right not to have to practice my religion.

This sort of tension seems obvious when talking about something as fists and faces, but gets much different when things get more complex.

But again, this is only ONE aspect of the issue. I'm also talking about what you mention in the second portion of you're arguement, that is "rights" and "liberties" as well as "freedom." These are terms we use in our system of government, but how dedicated are we to protecting them? And must we sacrifice part of them to protect the rest.

Again, I want to avoid answering the question directly right now, because I am interested in seeing where the debate goes.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"Open mindedness is not the same thing as empty mindedness."
-- John Dewey Democracy and Education (1916)

I think one could (hypothetically) approach the design of society from either direction:

a) Given the need for dependable social
structure and predictable outcomes,
what is the maximum level of freedom
that can be extended to individuals?

or

b) Given the need for individual freedom
from coercion and oppression, what is
the maximum state of cohesive social
organization that can be obtained?

Having said that, I will put forth the claim that efficiency tends to win out; as long as fascist totalitarianism is what it takes to make the trains run on time, you end up with fascist totalitarianism.

But a social system that integrates the input, opinions, and talents of all individuals is less fossilized, is more agile, responds to situations better, and expends far less of its total resources on social control...implying that while efficiency is less obviously a characteristic of a more democratic system, a functional arrangement of free and equal participants is potentially far more efficient (especially over the long haul) than any coercive system.

But the key word is "functional" and we haven't put enough time or energy into experimenting with it yet.

[PS -- deciding which of two nitwits is going to make your decisions for you for the next "x" years does not strike me as the pinnacle of egalitarian democratic participation]


------------------
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post

"How much freedom must we give up to guarantee our own security?"
Okay, Jason, clarify for me. When talking about security, you mean security from whom?
If you mean security from the chance that the government might oppress us, we mustn't give up any of our rights/freedoms. If we're afraid that some faction might overthrow our government and start a dictatorship, giving up our freedoms (i.e. free speech) won't prevent such a thing; in fact a populace which would agree to surrender free speech probably deserves a dictatorship.

If you mean security from other people who might abuse their own rights to hurt others, there are plenty of examples. Say we fear drunk drivers and decide it would be a good idea to do everything possible to deter them. We could give out steep penalties for it, we could install a breathalyzer in every car so no one could start their car unless sober; we could set up road blocks and search every car. At some point we have to agree on what is a reasonable risk. We could eliminate drunk driving, but are we willing to pay the cost?
Same goes for the war on drugs. We've already given up our rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. The government can confiscate your personal possessions and your money without benefit of a trial. Is it worth it?

Keeping it simple at this late hour, I'll just quote some wild-eyed radical:

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."
-- Thomas Paine (Common Sense)

Jason, you need to supply better examples:

When does one person's right to smoke begin to interfere with another's right to breathe clean air?

There is no such thing as the "right" to smoke, nor is there a "right" to breathe clean air. There are no gay rights, no abortion rights, no right to drive, no right to education, no right to shelter. Let's not make this more difficult by confusing constitutional rights with legislated privileges.

When does my right to privacy begin to interfere with your right to not get blown up by terrorists?

Huh? You talking search and siezure here?

Where does my right to free speech begin to interfere with your right not to get beat up by the people I insite?

As discussed in other threads, current law covers this pretty well.

Where does my right to practice my religion begin to interfere with your right not to have to practice my religion.

You lost me again. I don't know of any US case where an adult is forced to practice religion against their will. Are you talking about things like Christmas music in stores, or nativity scenes on public land?

I know you said you wanted this debate to shape itself, but we need parameters in which to debate.


------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

Jayron said:

When does one person's right to smoke begin to interfere with another's right to breathe clean air?

When the smoker is doing it in a manner that I cannot avoid. For example, if a restaurant wants to allow smoking, the government should not force it to stop. Anybody who doesn't want to inhale the second-hand smoke shouldn't eat (or work) there. But in a public building, like a courthouse, the people there generally have to be there, so they should not be subjected to second-hand smoke.

When does my right to privacy begin to interfere with your right to not get blown up by terrorists?

Wow, now there's an open question. Your right to privacy expires when you are actually planning a crime. In other words, the police need evidence of such a thing before they can tap your phones, etc.

Where does my right to free speech begin to interfere with your right not to get beat up by the people I insite?

When you actually incite them. If you aren't inciting them, then it's free speech. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Where does my right to practice my religion begin to interfere with your right not to have to practice my religion.

When you try to force it on another.

This sort of tension seems obvious when talking about something as fists and faces, but gets much different when things get more complex.

Is it a little more complex? Yes. But it's still really the same issue.

But again, this is only ONE aspect of the issue. I'm also talking about what you mention in the second portion of you're arguement, that is "rights" and "liberties" as well as "freedom." These are terms we use in our system of government, but how dedicated are we to protecting them?

"We" who? I, personally, am very dedicated to protecting them. I cannot, alas, say the same thing for many (most?) elected officials.

Again, I want to avoid answering the question directly right now, because I am interested in seeing where the debate goes.

And you're not part of the debate? This seems very strange...



------------------
"A woman came up to me and said 'I'd like to poison your mind with wrong ideas that appeal to you though I am not unkind'" -- They Might Be Giants, "Whistling in the Dark"

Dr. Jackson said:

There is no such thing as the "right" to smoke, nor is there a "right" to breathe clean air.

I disagree on both counts.

I think a person has an absolute right to do whatever he wants to his own body. If he wants to kill himself by smoking, hey, have at it! Similarly, other people have the right to not have to inhale the first person's smoke because the first person should not be imposing his unhealthy habit on others.

I always find it humerous when people answer rhetorical questions... Ah well.

And I will not be goaded into yet stating my feelings on this issue. Several people have questioned my saying that certain things are rights and whether they are or not. Is driving a car a privilage that the government, by its grace, allows you to exercise? Or is it a right upon which the government places restrictions for the safety of the citizenry. Ask yourself about any thing you may call a "privilage." What seperates a "right" from a "privilage?"

------------------
Jason R Remy

"Open mindedness is not the same thing as empty mindedness."
-- John Dewey Democracy and Education (1916)

Jayron said:

And I will not be goaded into yet stating my feelings on this issue.

Then I dub thee "Troll" and will not post further on a topic in which the original poster is not willing to discuss his post.

As soon as humans began gathering in groups, with all the advantages conferred by doing so, they began giving up certain things in exchange for others.

I, for example, do not own a car. I would like to have a car. I could kill my neighbor, and take his car, in a world of perfect freedom. But in a social environment, we have decided we don't do that sort of thing. Nor do we simply take his car without killing him. This has been true ever since humans formed tribes.

I feel that, yes, the members of a society have the right to decide that they prefer their members not do certain things or engage in certain behaviors. It has nothing to do with government, per se, but with the rules each group creates for itself collectively.

Values change from time to time, and the rules will reflect that. You ask how much freedom we have to give up to feel safe and secure? I guess I have to rely on the pornography answer--I don't know, but I'll know it when I feel it.

I do, however, disagree with Dr. Jackson's statement:

There is no such thing as the "right" to smoke, nor is there a "right" to breathe clean air. There are no gay rights, no abortion rights, no right to drive, no right to education, no right to shelter. Let's not make this more difficult by confusing constitutional rights with legislated privileges.

Why do you contend that there isn't such a right, for any of those things? Because a right is not specifically enumerated does not mean it doesn't exist, and the Constitution itself acknowledges this.

I'd like to pose a question about "rights". A few years back, when Clinton interceded (on behalf a an American teenage criminal who was to be caned for malicious destruction of property in Singapore), a local newspaper conducted a straw poll on whether people would exchange American "rights" for a society such as Singapore's. The shocking result was that the majority would give up their rights (in exchange for a social system that exists in S'pore-i.e. no juvenile crime, no graffiti, very little violent crime).
It's a sad comment on American society, that we have yielded so much to the criminals and anti social elements among us. As I understand it (I've never been there), S'pore is a "pseudo-democracy"-you have very limited rights vs. the government, but the trade-off is there is little or no crime. I'd like some comments on this, please.

Then I dub thee "Troll" and will not post further on a topic in which the original poster
is not willing to discuss his post.

Fine. You want it, you got it. My intention, as I have stated several times, is not to set people up for anything. Seems to me a troll is one who uses inflamatory or leading language to get people to bend to their will. Since this I trust that since you have largely ignored all of the previous posts I have made on the issue (or perhaps your feeble little brain is incapable of understanding them) I will make a nice long response to my original question. As I have stated SEVERAL TIMES (obviously not in small enough words for you to understand) that I was delaying my opinion for a few days so that people could get started. I don't appreciate being accused of something of which I am obviously not guilty. Apparently the subtleties of tact and interpersonal communication that apply to the rest of society (which involve NOT liberally throwing around accusations of trolling where they are obviously not applicable) do not apply to you. And don't get all bent out of shape at me. You're the one who whipped out the insults without provocation. You can look forward to my full response, hopefully in small enough words for you to understand.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"Open mindedness is not the same thing as empty mindedness."
-- John Dewey Democracy and Education (1916)

Ok, here's my take on the whole issue.

The government does not have the right to pass laws or commit actions that violate a persons individual civil liberties, for any reason. Neither does any other person. The government, as a collection of individuals, is held to no different standard than any other individual or collection of individuals in our society. No individual has the right to violate the basic rights of another individual. This is regardless of whether they are a Congressman, Policeman, or private citizen.

The government has the right to enforce laws to protect individuals from other individuals, but only in so far as their actions in and of themselves are harming or interfering with other individuals. As David B has stated already

Your right to
swing your hand ends where my nose begins.

As David has excellently put it, this basic principle extends to all interpersonal relationships, as well as, and I want to emphasize this, any relationship between the government (and its representatives) and the citizenry. In a civilized, free society, NO double standard can exist. We can not have one group of tolerable actions apply to one segment of the population and a different group of tolerable actions apply to another segment.

What does this mean in practical terms? It means that while the government has the right to restrict my behavior in public (in such manners as restrict my ability to pollute the air that others in my immediate environment have to breath: i.e. public smoking laws) they cannot restrict my behavior in private.

It also means that all people in the U.S. have to be held by the same laws. When a police officer shoots an unarmed civilian, the same action needs to be taken against that officer as though he belonged to any other profession. Police officers have no more right to engage in unreasonable behavior than the average citizen, and should have the same consequences apply.

Just as I, as a private citizen, have no right to tap your phone lines and listen to your private communications, so to does the government have no right to do so. There are some who would claim that in order to, for example, protect our country from the influx of drugs, traffic cops need to be able to search cars as they see fit, even if the car in question is not in any real violation of the law. A loosening of search and seizure laws, however, or a bending of the laws for the same purpose, serves no interest in protecting the public, it merely is another means of taking away YOUR basic human dignities and rights.

There it is: Just as no person has the right to deny another person their basic right to live as they see fit and without pain, so to must the government be held to teh same standard.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"Open mindedness is not the same thing as empty mindedness."
-- John Dewey Democracy and Education (1916)

Whoa! Split personality time.

First you whip out the insults, talking about my "feeble little brain" and then you turn around and say that I "excellently" summarized the situation. Hmmm.

Frankly, I thought your message was a pretty good summary, and I don't understand why you didn't post it earlier (which would have avoided my pointing out that you were acting like a troll). You may think that trolling only involves "inflamatory or leading language to get people to bend to their will," but a lot of trolling is done by people who already have a fixed viewpoint and just want to get people with the opposite viewpoint hopping around. For example, a while ago on this MB, somebody posted asking for information on evolution -- but he actually had no intention on ever being convinced; he was set in his views. Similarly, one regular here has posted several times on topics where he has a definite viewpoint, but he pretends he is objectively looking at the situation. While he has been found out and very few people take him seriously anymore, that is still a fairly common "troll" -- and he keeps trying every once in a while. So it is not uncommon for a troll to post about a controversial subject (which this is), try to stir up everybody else, and have no intention of entering into a discussion about it.

Now, leaving that part behind, I can't see anything in your message to disagree with. The only minor comment I have is when you say:

It means that while the government has the right to restrict my behavior in public (in such manners as restrict my ability to pollute the air that others in my immediate environment have to breath: i.e. public smoking laws) they cannot restrict my behavior in private.

You later clarify this, but I would change the word "cannot" to "should not." Just because the government doesn't have the right to do something doesn't, unfortunately, always stop it. As I'm sure you know, there are many laws still on the books that do indeed restrict your behavior in private (sodomy laws, for example). So while the government should not be passing such laws, history shows that they can under certain unfortunate circumstances.

David and Phil -

Examples in the way of explanation:
-If a smoker continually blows smoke in your face, can you sue him/her for violating your right to breathe clean air?
-Is a citizen entitled to free shelter or food? Can you get a driver's license free of charge? The government cannot charge or tax citizens for exercising rights (poll taxes are a good example).

Education is the only one on my list which might now be considered a right, but that only extends to primary education for children. Adults have no such right.

My litmus test for rights vs. privileges is "Can the government outlaw it, tax it, or charge a fee for it?" if the answer is "Yes", then it ain't a right.



------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

-If a smoker continually blows smoke in your face, can you sue him/her for violating your right to
breathe clean air?
-Is a citizen entitled to free shelter or food? Can you get a driver's license free of charge? The
government cannot charge or tax citizens for exercising rights (poll taxes are a good example).

1) You are confusing what our government will allow us to do under the present system and what are true rights. The government can impose fines (and DOES I might add) on people who flagrantly disregard public smoking laws. As such, it IS protecting your rights.

2) A citizen is entitled to access to competition to employment which will enable him to purchase his own food and shelter. Everyone is entitled to work for their own gain. In so far as the government is the entity which has funded the construction of the roads in this country, they have the right to decide what to do with those roads. If you have some property, and on that property you decide to build a road, you should be able to let who ever the heck you wish to drive on said road. The government chooses not to charge taxes on certain rights because it finds doing so politically prudent. Remember, just because the government DOES something does not mean it is RIGHT in doing that thing.

Education is the only one on my list which might now be considered a right, but that only extends to
primary education for children. Adults have no such right.

Remember, rights are what you are allowed to do should you have the resources to do it. Freedom of speech does not mean that newspapers must print what you say just because you want to say it. It does mean that you can spend your own resources to publish your ideas, however. Rights are not what you are entitled to recieve from others, including the government. We as citizens are entitled to education only because it is our money that goes towards that education in the form of taxes. If the government did not forcebly take that money from us, it would not have to provide the services it is providing with it. And privilages imply that it is something that someone could disallow you to partake of. If the government takes your money to provide a service, it cannot disallow you from partaking of that service. If it does not take your money, then it has no right to tell you how to use that money. There ARE no privilages given to you by the government, in that sense. There is only their obligation to provide services for which they are taking your money, and your right to spend what they leave you however you see fit.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"Open mindedness is not the same thing as empty mindedness."
-- John Dewey Democracy and Education (1916)

Jason, I think I have a couple of problems with some of the things which you are asserting.

The first is that there is some collection of a priori "right" and "wrong" actions which apply to what the government can or can't do (or should or shouldn't do). Is this what you are saying? And, if so, where do they come from?

The other thing you seem to be asserting is that there is an innate group of "rights" which should not be violated (and here I assume you refer to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Certainly that concept has political value (and value with which I agree), but I would argue that absent the existence of a government or some body to protect those rights, they are not innate and in fact don't exist at all.

Without the benefits of socialization and gathering in groups, and without some method of enforcing the rules, your (and my) "right" to life and liberty is meaningless. The rule is really "The biggest and strongest wins." Your right to life is meaningless to nature, or to someone who can push you around. Only when some other party intervenes to guard that right does it really exist.

Dr. Jackson said:

Examples in the way of explanation:
-If a smoker continually blows smoke in your face, can you sue him/her for violating your right to breathe clean air?

As you know, you can sue for pretty much anything. Whether or not it makes it through the system, well, who knows? But in this case, it would depend on the situation. As I said, there is a difference between smoking in public and in private (and private includes privately-owned places where the owner decides to allow it). So if you go to somebody's house and they do this, too bad. But if you're in a public place and they do it, you should have recourse to get them to stop (suing is a bit far, but calling a guard at a courthouse or something would make sense).

-Is a citizen entitled to free shelter or food? Can you get a driver's license free of charge?

Just a quick note that, although you addressed this to me and pld, I did not challenge you on these portions of your previous post. However:

My litmus test for rights vs. privileges is "Can the government outlaw it, tax it, or charge a fee for it?" if the answer is "Yes", then it ain't a right.

As Jayron notes, you are confusing what our government will allow with what rights are. If our government decided to void the 1st Amendment, would that mean we no longer have a right to free speech? No, we still have the right, but it is simply not being recognized by the government.

pld:

The first is that there is some collection of a priori "right" and "wrong" actions which apply to what
the government can or can't do (or should or shouldn't do). Is this what you are saying? And, if so,
where do they come from?

and Dr. J.

Actually, the answer is "Yes". As Phil noted in his answer to Jason, all of these "rights" are political
inventions (and good ones at that!). They do not exist in nature. Therefore, if the political body that
"protects" these rights for its citizens decides to no longer recognize them, then for all intents and
purposes those rights cease to exist.

OK... Here goes.

Rights exist because they come from our nature as humans. Every living thing has adaptations that allow it to survive, both as an individual and as a species. Dogs hunt in packs, that gives them a certain "nature," a certain set of actions that the dog must commit in order to insure their own survival. All animals have these adaptations, which allow them to eat, mate, etc. etc. If denied any of their basic survival tools, even if provided with food and mate, they suffer. Its why keeping animals in captivity are so tricky. If an animal is denied the ability to practice those things that are in its nature, it will fail to survive. EVEN if provided with all that they need, if their behavior is unnaturally restricted, they suffer and will not survive.

Humans have a nature too. Communication is a survival tool for humans. It is an adaptation we have that has allowed us to assume our place in the balance of nature. As such, there is freedom of speech. We lack much instict, we get our behavior through learning, as such we should have the freedom to create for our body the learning experiences that we feel we may need. All rights that people have, as well as all prohibitions on us (such as: we are prohibited to murder others) have developed out of our need to survive as a species, and as individuals. Denial of those things that have given us the power of survival will bring down our species.

Thus government, that necessary evil whose purpose is to regulate our survival, must do so in such a way as to not hinder that survival. It must provide us our security, without denying us our freedom.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"Open mindedness is not the same thing as empty mindedness."
-- John Dewey Democracy and Education (1916)

Jason says:

You are confusing what our government will allow us to do under the present system and what are true rights. The government can impose fines (and DOES I might add) on people who flagrantly disregard public smoking laws. As such, it IS protecting your rights.

I believe it is you who is confused. In the case above the government is enforcing the law, not protecting your rights. Some laws are in place to protect your rights, others are there to enforce societal mores and have nothing to do with rights.

Everyone is entitled to work for their own gain - Jason

Nope. An extreme example would be someone who is physically incapacitated and has only a rudimentary ability to communicate (blink once for 'yes', twice for 'no'). Are they entitled to work? No. Are they entitled to life? Yes. Liberty? Yes. To vote? Yes. A right is something which cannot be denied even unto the "least of us".

The government chooses not to charge taxes on certain rights because it finds doing so politically prudent. Jason

and

Remember, rights are what you are allowed to do should you have the resources to do it. Jason

Absolutely wrong! An "inalienable" right is just that. It cannot be denied anyone. Courts have ruled that charging or taxing rights excludes those too poor to pay from exercising those rights. That is why poll taxes were abolished and why the government must provide you an attorney if you cannot afford one.

In so far as the government is the entity which has funded the construction of the roads in this country, they have the right to decide what to do with those roads. If you have some property, and on that property you decide to build a road, you should be able to let who ever the heck you wish to drive on said road.

You are comparing apples and oranges. As has been stated in a previous thread, rights are how government must relate to its citizens; laws are how citizens must relate to each other. Sometimes they're the same, sometimes not. I can make you pray as a condition of entering my house. The government cannot make you pray to enter a public building.

Rights are not what you are entitled to recieve from others, including the government - Jason

Rights are exactly what you are entitled to expect from the government.

We as citizens are entitled to education only because it is our money that goes towards that education in the form of taxes. -Jason

No, again, though arguably. After more thought I have changed my mind. I contend that we have made primary education a right in this country because it is available to all children regardless of whether their family pays taxes. Today, primary education cannot be denied any child.

As Jayron notes, you are confusing what our government will allow with what rights are. If our government decided to void the 1st Amendment, would that mean we no longer have a right to free speech? -DavidB

Actually, the answer is "Yes". As Phil noted in his answer to Jason, all of these "rights" are political inventions (and good ones at that!). They do not exist in nature. Therefore, if the political body that "protects" these rights for its citizens decides to no longer recognize them, then for all intents and purposes those rights cease to exist.





------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

So those people under the authority of Monarchy, Communism, Theocracy, and Dictatorship - where these "basic rights" are denied - will just die out? Historically it certainly doesn't seem to work that way.

------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

Jason, I must disagree that our rights come from our nature as humans. There are other rights we value that don't have "survival value", such as the right to privacy and the right to vote. Although maybe you aren't including those in your list of basic rights. Anyway, I am with those who say that our rights are what we as society decide they will be. The hard part is deciding them. Ideas like "Your right to swing your hand ends where my nose begins." are easy to agree with. I think where it gets difficult is when it comes to potential harm vs. actual harm. I think this is the cause of the tension between Freedom and Security. For examples:
Shooting someone - should be illegal, no argument.
Owning weapons that have potential to harm - this debate goes on.
I think AHunter's view is closest to my own.

[AHunter3]

Yet another Deeply Philosophical Discussion saved from the pruning-room floor.

::bump::