Libertarian Manifesto

Mr_Lineberry's picture
Submitted by Mr_Lineberry on Tue, 2021-03-30 00:07

Something which I feel is long overdue is to move beyond criticising the endless socialism in New Zealand, and propose an alternative course of action. A manifesto for freedom to unshackle a once great nation from the decades of darkness it has endured in the modern era.

The Libertarian Manifesto is not going to be the usual infantile, smartypants 'wish list' - popular in the past - having little relation to reality, but rather from the perspective of "What if libertarians took office at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning?". A fair question. If we - the good guys - did take over tomorrow and inherited 1001 problems that have been allowed to mount up over the years, problems that actually exist (alas!), how would things be tackled?

What would a Libertarian New Zealand look like?

What steps would be undertaken to get there?

What hurdles need to be jumped on the journey to paradise?

Feel free to contribute with well thought out, well argued proposals on specific topics as to what is required and how it would be achieved. But save the 8 year old girl 'wish list' stuff for elsewhere; fairy princesses and running through the meadows does have a place (but not being a bore when the adults are busy).....


Mr_Lineberry's picture

the most 'enthusiastic' video ever made about libertarianism - critical in parts; typical lefty nonsense. Still worth a look....

Interesting Video

Mr_Lineberry's picture

The End Result

Mr_Lineberry's picture

There is some - perhaps quite genuine - concern by the average man in the street; mainlining slavery to the State for decades; as to how things would be paid for and what a leap into the unknown would involve. I defer once again to our friend David Lewis (who tells it in a much more amusing way than me); spelling and punctuation are his, and I edited the ending.

In short, folks, New Zealand would adopt what Benjamin Franklin did 250 years ago to fund Guv'mun services......

"...A long while back, in my email titled, “Ben Franklin’s revenge,” I told you about Ben Franklin and his insane annuity gift to the cities of Boston and Philadelphia.

He did this as a sort of dare because Charles-Joseph Mathon de la Cour made fun of his Poor Richard’s Almanac and because he loved both of those cities and wanted to make sure they prospered long after he was dead and gone.

Anyway, despite severe mismanagement, the annuity grew to a sum sufficient to pay for essential government services like courts and a basic police force for the city.


In 1938, Jonathan Holden (a successful lawyer) established a $2.8 million trust fund and gave part of it to the state of Pennsylvania as a way to honor Ben Franklin for his oh-so-cool idea.

Holdeen’s explicit goal was to establish a series of 500 year and 1,000 year trust funds which would eliminate the need for taxation in Pennsylvania — forever.

The fund would mature somewhere between 2400 and 2938.

Let’s expand on that idea, shall we?

A “Holdeen Trust” or a “Methuselah Trust” is a trust arrangement, usually funded by an insurance policy or some other very long-dated asset, which (at some point in the distant future) disperses interest payments to beneficiaries.

If implemented on a national scale, and managed by private citizens, would ensure no one would ever have to pay taxes ever again or worry about essential government services ever again — a true Don Quixote “Golden Helmet” solution to the alleged intractable problem of government finance.

No force would be required to implement such a solution and all government services would be financed voluntarily.

On top of that, you, me, and everyone else could voluntarily pay premiums on “protection contracts,” similar to how we pay for auto, home, and life insurance now.

These mini-contracts would be attached to everyday goods and services and especially credit and equity contracts and… they would go toward paying for court costs if you ever needed to use the court system.

So… how is the Holdeen Trust doing?

Not good, I’m afraid.

You see, most people are still “marshmallow now” kind of people (google that if you don’t know what I’m talking about).

And so… in 1967… the issue went to court because the beneficiaries of the trust were worried about the trust fund growing “too large”… and… the court ruled that the Holdeen Trust could remain intact but interest could not be reinvested.

Instead, interest payments would be sent to the beneficiaries each year.

The beneficiaries couldn’t stand the idea of that trust fund fulfilling its intended purpose.

A mindset I can’t fully wrap my head around, and also why I tend to have zero pity on those who spurn me and my advice to always be saving money.

By the way, this move cost the residents of PA $2.5 quadrillion, and I believe that’s on just one trust fund. There were several of these funds.

That’s $2.5 thousand trillions, or $2.5 million billions… in other words… a fugk of a lot of money.

The idea of a totally free market in everything, and a government whose only purpose is to maintain a court system, police, and military, is not technically difficult to pull off.

You see, the Holdeen trust was just one attempt to free us of forced taxation. Many millionaires have tried the same exact thing using Methuselah trusts.

All of them have failed.

By and large, people want to be controlled and told what to do by state and federal governments. They do not want to be free. And more than that… they want to bankrupt rich people through taxation and hate it when others see a glimpse of freedom in their future.

It’s not about helping poor people. It’s about destroying rich people. It’s nothing more than envy.

Until people get it into their heads that saving money can solve all manner of problems (even so-called complex government funding problems), the world will always have financial problems.

And… it will always have problems with corruption.

That mentality of thrift must come about through a massive philosophical and cultural change — a paradigm shift in the way people behave and live.

They must see savings as the means by which future production takes place. Production on such a massive scale that it is capable of making everyone insanely wealthy.

And… production which makes big government obsolete....."

Once this is up and running successfully then GST (mentioned in the taxation section below) would be abolished making NZ a tax free nation.


Mr_Lineberry's picture

This was invented by the Socialist government in 1938 and basically destroyed the human spirit, the pioneering spirit which had built this once great country. They put everyone on a welfare benefit, often in subtle ways, and suddenly you didn't need to manage your own affairs because the Guv'mun would do it for you. Cast your eyes around the huge problems which maoris and other poor people experience - hunger, want, degrading behavior, violence, frustration, despair - all is caused solely by 85 years of welfare handouts which replaced the human spirit with something which was perceived as being 'free'; I say the cost has been enormous.

Around 10% of New Zealanders live in Australia; the figure is probably much higher if you consider children who have been born over there. Living in Australia involves a trade off; on the one hand you can move there (on April 19th?), live and work there; start a business, make your fortune; raise your family. You can remain in Australia indefinitely with no need for a visa merely by possessing a New Zealand Passport. On the other hand you have no entitlement to the welfare system in Australia.

So we have 10% (and the rest) of the NZ population living with no welfare safety net; by definition they survive and manage their own affairs perfectly well. There are a few useless, ignorant Maoris and Westie white trash sleeping under bridges - but what would you expect? haha! But there are literally tens of thousands of Maoris and poor people who fly across the Tasman and truly find paradise, and this occurs because they are away from the toxic poison of Maori culture, and the destructive NZ welfare system.

When 10% of the population are doing something successfully it proves - and no debate or contrary opinions are required because clearly they are incorrect - this is the right thing to be doing; not doing it, doing the opposite (ie: the status quo) must, logically, be wrong. Therefore what Libertarians propose is to simply..... have the situation in Australia in New Zealand.

We want to have something which works; something successful; something which greatly benefits the people of New Zealand.

Foreign Affairs

Mr_Lineberry's picture

Under a truly libertarian government there isn't much need for this sort of nonsense.

One bizarre misapprehension New Zealanders are under is a view we are enormously virtuous; you should listen to 17 year old fry quackers on this one! Apparently the logic is: we belong to the UN, we oppose all sorts of dastardly things; therefore we must be good. Oh and if there is some primitive savage group killing and eating another primitive savage group, well, gosh darn it, who are we to criticize? it's their culture (you racist!).

Ugh! Barf!

Anyway, if we were truly virtuous then we would withdraw from the United Nations immediately. The UN is nothing more than a forum to legitimize all the evil in the World, which has been happening since its creation. Each year the General Assembly meets and heads of government give boring speeches; but by allowing, listening, and applauding speeches made by mass murdering Communist Dictators we legitimize them. Oh yes we do cupcake (you're too ignorant to understand). This means New Zealand isn't quite as virtuous as we pretend we are.

We should withdraw from this disgraceful body, a rubbish bin for failed socialist politicians; and keep our fry quacking noses out of foreign affairs. It is none of our business. There is nothing which has occurred - wars, conflicts, genocide, tribal disputes - of any concern to New Zealand or our national interest since the bombing of Darwin in 1942 (and even that was no great loss) - if not earlier. Troops in such places as East Timor, Sinai, Singapore, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Gallipoli, has been a complete crock of virtue signaling nonsense from that day to this.

Libertarians don't want to tell anybody else what to do. Libertarians don't want wars. Libertarians don't try to pretend they care about negro children or Persian peasants, as socialists do. We should promote peace by trading with the World; flog things off to everybody and they'll be earning too much money to think of killing each other.

There is another obvious reason why we should stay out of foreign affairs; namely that New Zealand has never, ever, been in danger of invasion. This is for a simple reason - Southland. We Southlanders have massive oil reserves, we have farming, we have tourism, we have long established export markets, we have massive wealth; we can take care of ourselves and don't require any assistance. On the other hand, once you get north of the Clutha river..... there's nothing worth having Sticking out tongue haha!


Mr_Lineberry's picture

That old chestnut! Taxation is theft. It steals money from people in order to spend on things government chooses, but which are unnecessary, or things done solely to buy votes. Whichever way you look at it - taxation is evil.

All forms of taxation in New Zealand should be immediately abolished, except one; GST. This means income tax, company tax, FBT, taxes on drinkies and petrol, bright line wanks, customs duties; all these along with the rest "gone by lunchtime!".

GST, however, should remain. Not because there is any particular merit in GST, but because it is easy to collect and because it is fairer; everybody pays, and everybody pays the same amount. Each percentage point of GST collects $1.25 billion, according to treasury figures. At 15% it collects $18 billion (according to their figures, which I have rounded off). Needless to say the government does not need to collect or spend $18 billion, so the rate should be reduced back to its original 10%.

To summarize - all forms of taxation abolished, keep GST, reduce the rate to 10%, everyone pays the same.

A Constitution

Mr_Lineberry's picture

This is something which is a top priority were Libertarians to take over "at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning". The need to entrench our freedoms from the evil state and socialism. The obvious way to do so is merely to entrench the NZ Bill of Rights Act, as well as adding a number of things which were (predictably) left out when passed by a socialist Government in 1990.

In order to entrench it as a Constitution the silly Section 4 (which basically says where the Bill of Rights Act conflicts with other laws, the other law prevails) needs to be repealed. Once that is done Parliament would then repeal all the laws which DO conflict with the Bill of Rights Act. This is really all that is required - no need for a big wankfest; no poncing about pretending to be Jefferson - because what remains is fairly clear and not really open to interpretation.

There are a couple of amendments which are required; first a 'Property Rights Amendment' "Everyone has the right to own property; the state shall make no law confiscating a person's property or impeding their ability to acquire property..." (etc; you get the general idea). Secondly, we need a 'Capitalism Amendment' - entrenching the free enterprise economic system, preventing any laws interfering with that economic system, and specifically banning socialism (although presumably the former, in effect, does the latter?).

Then we get into some interesting territory. Because the Bill of Rights Act is symbolic, rather than entrenched (Geoff Palmer virtue signaling), there are some sections which conflict with each other; do we wish to choose one and repeal the other? Sticking out tongue (the bun fight would be so funny to watch! haha!)

For example, Section 17 "Everyone has the right to freedom of association." - all well and good. But Section 19 specifically conflicts with it "Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination ...." (hint: choosing to freely associate with certain people means you discriminate against other people). As I say, do we repeal one and keep the other? personally I don't have a particular view on this, but others may wish to debate the merits of this course of action.

Here is the current Bill of Rights Act....

1Short Title and commencement
(1)This Act may be cited as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

(2)This Act shall come into force on the 28th day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

Part 1
General provisions
2Rights affirmed
The rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights are affirmed.

This Bill of Rights applies only to acts done—

(a)by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the Government of New Zealand; or

(b)by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law.

4Other enactments not affected
No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights),—

(a)hold any provision of the enactment to be impliedly repealed or revoked, or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or

(b)decline to apply any provision of the enactment—

by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights.

5Justified limitations
Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

6Interpretation consistent with Bill of Rights to be preferred
Wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.

7Attorney-General to report to Parliament where Bill appears to be inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Where any Bill is introduced into the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General shall,—

(a)in the case of a Government Bill, on the introduction of that Bill; or

(b)in any other case, as soon as practicable after the introduction of the Bill,—

bring to the attention of the House of Representatives any provision in the Bill that appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights.

Part 2
Civil and political rights
Life and security of the person
8Right not to be deprived of life
No one shall be deprived of life except on such grounds as are established by law and are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.

9Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.

10Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
Every person has the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without that person's consent.

11Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment
Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.

Democratic and civil rights
12Electoral rights
Every New Zealand citizen who is of or over the age of 18 years—

(a)has the right to vote in genuine periodic elections of members of the House of Representatives, which elections shall be by equal suffrage and by secret ballot; and

(b)is qualified for membership of the House of Representatives.

13Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

14Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

15Manifestation of religion and belief
Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.

16Freedom of peaceful assembly
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

17Freedom of association
Everyone has the right to freedom of association.

18Freedom of movement
(1)Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.

(2)Every New Zealand citizen has the right to enter New Zealand.

(3)Everyone has the right to leave New Zealand.

(4)No one who is not a New Zealand citizen and who is lawfully in New Zealand shall be required to leave New Zealand except under a decision taken on grounds prescribed by law.

Non-discrimination and minority rights
19Freedom from discrimination
(1)Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993.

(2)Measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination that is unlawful by virtue of Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993 do not constitute discrimination.

Section 19: substituted, on 1 February 1994, by section 145 of the Human Rights Act 1993 (1993 No 82).

20Rights of minorities
A person who belongs to an ethnic, religious, or linguistic minority in New Zealand shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of that minority, to enjoy the culture, to profess and practise the religion, or to use the language, of that minority.

Search, arrest, and detention
21Unreasonable search and seizure
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise.

22Liberty of the person
Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained.

23Rights of persons arrested or detained
(1)Everyone who is arrested or who is detained under any enactment—

(a)shall be informed at the time of the arrest or detention of the reason for it; and

(b)shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c)shall have the right to have the validity of the arrest or detention determined without delay by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the arrest or detention is not lawful.

(2)Everyone who is arrested for an offence has the right to be charged promptly or to be released.

(3)Everyone who is arrested for an offence and is not released shall be brought as soon as possible before a court or competent tribunal.

(4)Everyone who is—

(a)arrested; or

(b)detained under any enactment—

for any offence or suspected offence shall have the right to refrain from making any statement and to be informed of that right.

(5)Everyone deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person.

24Rights of persons charged
Everyone who is charged with an offence—

(a)shall be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the charge; and

(b)shall be released on reasonable terms and conditions unless there is just cause for continued detention; and

(c)shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer; and

(d)shall have the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence; and

(e)shall have the right, except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of a trial by jury when the penalty for the offence is or includes imprisonment for 2 years or more; and

(f)shall have the right to receive legal assistance without cost if the interests of justice so require and the person does not have sufficient means to provide for that assistance; and

(g)shall have the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if the person cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Section 24(e): amended, on 1 July 2013, by section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Amendment Act 2011 (2011 No 92).

25Minimum standards of criminal procedure
Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:

(a)the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court:

(b)the right to be tried without undue delay:

(c)the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:

(d)the right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess guilt:

(e)the right to be present at the trial and to present a defence:

(f)the right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence under the same conditions as the prosecution:

(g)the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty:

(h)the right, if convicted of the offence, to appeal according to law to a higher court against the conviction or against the sentence or against both:

(i)the right, in the case of a child, to be dealt with in a manner that takes account of the child's age.

26Retroactive penalties and double jeopardy
(1)No one shall be liable to conviction of any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred.

(2)No one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again.

27Right to justice
(1)Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.

(2)Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.

(3)Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals.

Part 3
Miscellaneous provisions
28Other rights and freedoms not affected
An existing right or freedom shall not be held to be abrogated or restricted by reason only that the right or freedom is not included in this Bill of Rights or is included only in part.

29Application to legal persons
Except where the provisions of this Bill of Rights otherwise provide, the provisions of this Bill of Rights apply, so far as practicable, for the benefit of all legal persons as well as for the benefit of all natural persons.

Government Departments

Mr_Lineberry's picture

Here we enter territory which has tripped up many a freedom fighter in the past, mostly due to their astonishing level of political naivety and amateurism. It was just breathtaking as a boy in the 1980s and early 90s watching Sir Roger and that awful Richardson woman go crashing around practically inviting the left wingers to vacuum up votes and "moral" arguments; those two were prize bunnies. Never underestimate the abundance of False Prophets on the left offering the ignorant (Maoris, Irish Catholics, working class people etc) the fruits of everyone else's labour.

What is required is to neutralize the left and their basket of goods by PROVING they are simply wrong.

The way it needs to be done is undertaking the following steps -

1. Relevant committees of Parliament hold hearings, preferably televised in primetime, where the heads of Government Departments are questioned.

2. They are asked such questions as what their department actually does, why it does it, how much it costs, how many people are employed to do it, how much they get paid to do it.

[Just to pause for a moment; it is here that Douglas, Richardson, Reagan, Thatcher - even Lindsay (sorry!!) et al. made their fatal mistake. They stopped here. It is at this point you have to go in for the kill....(aren't you feeling fortunate you have me? to do the thinking? the deviousness? haha!)]

3. You then ask the heads of departments to QUANTIFY their existence. Instead of stating the obvious, and hoping the man in the street comes to his senses, that lightning will create the lightning!

Ask questions such as -

"In the month prior to your department being created, what dastardly crisis was befalling the man in the street in Hastings, or Timaru, or Mt Roskill - so bad it required your department being created in order to solve it?"

"Can you give us, say, 20 examples?"

"Can you demonstrate how you solved those problems after your department was created?"

"Do you think the man in the street in Hastings, Timaru, or Mt Roskill has even heard of your department?"

"Do you think he can name one thing your department does?"

You get the general idea as to the line of questioning to undertake.

(Steady Neddy - don't cock it up now, just as victory appears on the horizon....)

Then just ask such questions as -

"Would the man in the street in these, and numerous other, places be worse off if your department didn't exist?"

"Can you give us another 20 examples why that would be?"

"We are going to be questioning randomly selected people from various towns and cities across the country - and asking them; would it surprise you if they all said they cannot think of how abolishing your department would make them worse off?"

"If so, why would that surprise you? in what way are they mistaken?"

(you get the general idea)

My point folks is simple: get them to admit what we already know. Get them to do it - get it on record that the racket is indeed a racket. Don't just preach from the gospel, but rather have a record to neutralize left wing critics "But the head of that department said it didn't need to exist!" (bit hard to argue with, wouldn't you agree?)

Therefore come Budget Day and the announcement numerous departments will be abolished as of midnight it is fait accompli; you don't do the Amateur Hour stuff of Sir Roger by opening the door to a Jim Anderton et al.


Mr_Lineberry's picture

For our overseas friends, 'superannuation' is the New Zealand word for old age pensions.

The objective here is to remove the state from providing pensions and consigning elderly people to an impoverished old age as has happened for decades since the ludicrous "Social Security Act" of 1938 was enacted; a pernicious evil upon the New Zealand population because it took away the man in the street's incentive to save and invest for his retirement. We are now in a situation whereby the overwhelming majority of the population has little in the way of private income in retirement - very few people have more than $10,000 a year above superannuation. A disgraceful situation.

The obvious solution is Kiwisaver, private investments whereby the individual contributes money with his employer also contributing a percentage of his salary; as the years go by this money is invested, the investment returns compound. For most people this would cover their retirement needs; providing an income, along with having their cake too as the capital sum remains theirs.

Certain steps need to be taken to phase out state pensions -

1. Everyone born on or after 1 January 2000 (an obvious date on history's calendar) is politely informed they are not to receive any state pension. Kiwisaver is it. I would compensate these folk with an annual tax credit of, say, $2000 to compensate them for paying taxes for something they are not entitled to themselves.

2. For those born between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1999 they would also be informed they are not receiving a state pension, as above, but I would give them a one off $30,000 tax credit to both compensate for taxes already paid (ie: someone born in, say, 1995 has been in the workforce longer than someone born in, say, 2002).

3. All Kiwisaver funds would no longer be taxed, in order to greatly increase the returns to members.

4. For those born between 1 January 1970 and 31 March 1989 there would be a sliding scale of superannuation entitlements. It would be 50% for someone born in 1970, 45% for someone born in 1971, 40% in 1972 and so on to 5% for those born in 1979 onwards. A nominal figure reflecting their age, the taxes they have already paid, and time to retirement.

5. Change the mindset of New Zealanders. In Australia "super" (ie: everyone's own account) is big stuff; people are always talking about it. In New Zealand few people seem to view their Kiwisaver as a "store of wealth"; it seems to be seen as some kind of glorified PAYE - an oddity about New Zealanders which would be easy enough to change, easy enough to encourage the man in the street to see where is bread is (literally) buttered.

What all this means is that in due course Superannuation (by the state) gets phased out by nature taking its course.

From January 1, 2035 new chums reaching retirement age see a substantial drop in any payout, and by 1 January 2044 it becomes 'nominal'; probably not worth worrying about. Also by these dates (the mid 30s) there would be a considerable drop off in the numbers of those currently receiving superannuation from the state, as over the next 14 years vast numbers of folk will simply die of natural causes. Eventually we get to a situation in around 20 years whereby state superannuation is literally dying out!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.