Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Andreas

Objectivism's View Of Anarchism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I am trying to learn as much as i can about Objectivism, and just wondered if anyone know of any litterature describing Objectivism's view of Anarchism.

Anything will do.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am trying to learn as much as i can about Objectivism, and just wondered if anyone know of any litterature describing Objectivism's view of Anarchism.

Anything will do.

I would suggest that you read, at least, Ayn Rand's essay "The Nature of Givernment," reprinted in Captialism: The Unknown Ideal, a book containing quite a few essays that may be of interest to you. Here is an excerpt (P. 334):

"In unthinking protest against this trend, some people are raising the question of whether government as such is evil by nature and whether anarchy is the ideal social system. Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: for all the reasons discussed above, a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen is right to suggest that you start with Rand's own words on the subject. Then, for an alternate view see Roy Childs's essay, "An Open Letter to Ayn Rand" at http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Extro/OpenLettertoRand.asp

Here is an excerpt:

"It is my contention that limited government is a floating abstraction which has never been concretized by anyone; that a limited government must either initiate force or cease being a government; that the very concept of limited government is an unsuccessful attempt to integrate two mutually contradictory elements: statism and voluntarism. Hence, if this can be shown, epistemological clarity and moral consistency demands the rejection of the institution of government totally, resulting in free market anarchism, or a purely voluntary society."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephen is right to suggest that you start with Rand's own words on the subject.  Then, for an alternate view see Roy Childs's essay, "An Open Letter to Ayn Rand" at http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Extro/OpenLettertoRand.asp

Charlotte is right to suggest you follow up by reading Childs' essay. Then listen to Peikoff's course "Understanding Objectivism," so you can see through rationalism wherever it rears its ugly head...as in Childs' essay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlotte is right to suggest you follow up by reading Childs' essay. Then listen to Peikoff's course "Understanding Objectivism," so you can see through rationalism wherever it rears its ugly head...as in Childs' essay.

The Losertarians have been spouting their nonsense for more than three decades now, and it is just as silly now as it was then. It was refuted years ago, but each new generation of Losertarians rediscovers it and waves the same old crumpled banner again. It is really tiresome, and a bore. The Losertarians seek to gain credibility by attempting to engage Objectivists, and to respond lends an intellectual air to thoughtless, concrete-bound "thinking." Keep in mind that the Losertarians are clowns, big red nose and floppy shoes included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charlotte is right to suggest you follow up by reading Childs' essay.  Then listen to Peikoff's course "Understanding Objectivism," so you can see through rationalism wherever it rears its ugly head...as in Childs' essay.

I believe Childs eventually came to see the fallacies in his own argument, although he died before he was able to publish them in any detail.

Fred Weiss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Losertarians have been spouting their nonsense for more than three decades now, and it is just as silly now as it was then. It was refuted years ago, but each new generation of Losertarians rediscovers it and waves the same old crumpled banner again. It is really tiresome, and a bore. The Losertarians seek to gain credibility by attempting to engage Objectivists, and to respond lends an intellectual air to thoughtless, concrete-bound "thinking." Keep in mind that the Losertarians are clowns, big red nose and floppy shoes included.

Let's take a look at Stephen's response. "Losertarians," "nonsense," "crumpled banner," "tiresome," "thoughtless," "concrete-bound," "clowns."

My, what a spectacular display of logical rigor!

I believe Childs eventually came to see the fallacies in his own argument, although he died before he was able to publish them in any detail.

It must have been a killer argument!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am trying to learn as much as i can about Objectivism, and just wondered if anyone know of any litterature describing Objectivism's view of Anarchism.

Anything will do.

Thank you.

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a serious critique of the Rothbarian theory of “anarcho-capitalism” from any capitalist, much less an Objectivist. The closest work I’m aware of is “Anarchy, State and Utopia” by Robert Nozick - which I haven’t read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a serious critique of the Rothbarian theory of “anarcho-capitalism” from any capitalist, much less an Objectivist. 

Ayn Rand critiqued Rothbard in meetings they had at her apartment and elsewhere. Rothbard took a very early course in Objectivism prior to Ayn Rand's break with him. See George Reisman's Captialism: A Treatise On Economics for details on this, and for Reisman's own analysis.

p.s. The words "serious critique" brings a smile to my face, as if "anarcho-capitalism" is deserving of being treated seriously. I agree with Ayn Rand that anarchy as a political system, and the notion of competing governments, is a "naive floating abstraction," as she discusses in her discussion on anarchy in the essay The Nature of Government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
p.s. The words "serious critique" brings a smile to my face, as if "anarcho-capitalism" is deserving of being treated seriously. I agree with Ayn Rand that anarchy as a political system, and the notion of competing governments, is a "naive floating abstraction," as she discusses in her discussion on anarchy in the essay The Nature of Government.

I have to disagree with you on this point. I think anarchism is horribly wrong, but that can be difficult to grasp - some of those guys like Childs and Friedman spin some very tricky arguments and it would be helpful if someone dealt with them in some detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with you on this point. I think anarchism is horribly wrong, but that can be difficult to grasp - some of those guys like Childs and Friedman spin some very tricky arguments and it would be helpful if someone dealt with them in some detail.

Note Ayn Rand's essentialization, in the same essay, in terms of fundamental principles:

"One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms "competition" and "government." Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately."

How much detailed analysis is required to refute a "theory" that is "devoid of any understanding of the terms 'competition' and 'government,' and is also "devoid of any contact with or reference to reality?" If you want more than Ayn Rand provided then read Reisman's book. But, regardless, I think treating the supposed arguments in any detail is more than such silliness deserves. Once you understand the principle, some things are just not worth further effort. I can understand how someone in that field might write a paper as an exercise in analysis, underscoring the absurdity of the position, but beyond that I personally do not see that it is deserving of any detailed consideration. Of what value is analysis of a "tricky argument" when its underlying principle has no reference to reality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note Ayn Rand's essentialization, in the same essay, in terms of fundamental principles:

"One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms "competition" and "government." Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately."

How much detailed analysis is required to refute a "theory" that is "devoid of any understanding of the terms 'competition' and 'government,' and is also "devoid of any contact with or reference to reality?"

Rand's words amount to nothing more than an assertion that the anarchist does not understand "competition" and "government." She does not offer any proof beyond that. But anyone who reads Rothbard's Man, Economy and State and Power and Market is given a crystal clear understanding of the nature of government and competition.

Furthermore, no one to my knowledge has successfully refuted Childs's point regarding the contradiction inherent in a government which presumes to defend individual rights yet at the same time initiates force to maintain its monopoly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, no one to my knowledge has successfully refuted Childs's point regarding the contradiction inherent in a government which presumes to defend individual rights yet at the same time initiates force to maintain its monopoly.

The contradiction is actually inherent in the view that the gov't not maintain such a monopoly, since without such a monopoly there would be no way to resolve disputes between "competing agencies". And thus, instead of anarchism upholding individual rights, it must devolve into open warfare and the destruction of civilization.

It is my understanding that Child's himself came to realize this - although he died before he was able to publish his thinking on the subject.

There is in fact no contradiction in forcing people to uphold individual rights (which is really: forcing them to not violate rights) because if you don't, then you don't have individual rights. What's the alternative - that people be able to choose not to uphold individual rights? If that's not a contradiction, then I don't know what is.

Fred Weiss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The contradiction is actually inherent in the view that the gov't not maintain such a monopoly, since without such a monopoly there would be no way to resolve disputes between "competing agencies". And thus, instead of anarchism upholding individual rights, it must devolve into open warfare and the destruction of civilization.
I respectfully disagree.

With one government or with more than one, the way to resolve disputes should "always" be an appeal to rational faculties of men, and when that is not possible, the use of force is appropriate.

There is in fact no contradiction in forcing people to uphold individual rights (which is really: forcing them to not violate rights) because if you don't, then you don't have individual rights. What's the alternative - that people be able to choose not to uphold individual rights? If that's not a contradiction, then I don't know what is.

This is a straw man. Of course those that uphold individual rights should have a monopoly on the use of force. But those people or their institutions can differ in more than one way i.e. in more than wether or not they uphold individual rights. And once this is recognized, one has to see that more than one government is necessary and good.

Who decides how much money I want to spend on my government? How many police officers and how much of their time? What will their policies be? How professional are they? Do I care to spend money to protect my neighboors? This list is endless.

Government is the most important business, without it, no other human ambiton is secure, but aside from this point, government is just like any other business. Meaning, that it belongs in the free market. If I don't want black people to protect me, I have a right to hire rights-respecting men to cater to my mistaken thinking.

If I think those fellows down the road or in the Capital are decent enought, but not as competent as the professionals half-way across the world or even myself, then everyone should leave me alone until I threaten to step on their foot, at which time....

as I said above, the way to resolve disputes is always the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respectfully disagree.

With one government or with more than one, the way to resolve disputes should "always" be an appeal to rational faculties of men, and when that is not possible, the use of force is appropriate.

Wrong. One should always resolve peaceful disputes peacefully, and one should always resolve forceful disputes (disputes where the other party has initiated force) by (retaliatory) force.

Meaning, that it [government]belongs in the free market.

Without a proper government, there is no free market. A free market means that people are able to produce and trade with one another in a system where their rights are respected and enforced. To say that government should operate on the free market is therefore a contradiction in terms. A free market is not a given, but an accomplishment.

The rest of your post is merely a rehash of the false belief that you have the right to impose your will on others by force. You'll say that's not your view, but if you concretize your floating abstractions you'll see that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong. One should always resolve peaceful disputes peacefully, and one should always resolve forceful disputes (disputes where the other party has initiated force) by (retaliatory) force.
I respectfully disagree. Wrong.

There are many instances in which one might be wronged (stolen from, defrauded or physically attacked) and have it in his interests to resolve the problem by appealing to the rational faculites of the wrongdoer in place of retalitory force.

That said, one could reasonably (and you did) find fault with my first statement. I still stand by it regardless. Yes, there are instances in which one is able to solve the problem by reasoning with the wrongdoer and yet finds it still preferable to use force; however, in daily circumstances, its "always" better not to use force when it is not necessary to solve the problem. Notice the scare quotes both here and in my original post. I do allow for exceptions to this rule.

Regardless, the point of my statement was to say that in a system of multiple governmental institutions, the process of solving disputes is fundamentally the same as it would be if there were just one such institution.

Without a proper government, there is no free market. A free market means that people are able to produce and trade with one another in a system where their rights are respected and enforced. To say that government should operate on the free market is therefore a contradiction in terms. A free market is not a given, but an accomplishment.

Let me rephrase what I meant ---

A person should have right-to-life respected both in his production and trade of food AND his production and trade of protection services.

The rest of your post is merely a rehash of the false belief that you have the right to impose your will on others by force. You'll say that's not your view, but if you concretize your floating abstractions you'll see that it is.

You are correct. I do say that is not my view. I confess I'm a little bewildered by this assesment. What floating abstractions are speaking of?

My arguement is simple.

A person should have right-to-life respected both in his production and trade of food AND his production and trade of protection services (and other governmental goods and services)

Different people will have different wants (as far as food goes and certainly as far as governmental goods and services go)

Who decides how much money I want to spend on my government? How many police officers and how much of their time? What will their policies be? How professional are they? Do I care to spend money to protect my neighboors? This list of choices available to citzens is endless.

And so long as this endless list of choices is available to individuals, people willing to sell them and people willing to buy them, there should not be a "monopoly" on governmental institutions. If it were a natural economic monopoly, great, but I suspect that is not what you mean by monopoly in this context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respectfully disagree.  Wrong.

There are many instances in which one might be wronged (stolen from, defrauded or physically attacked) and have it in his interests to resolve the problem by appealing to the rational faculites of the wrongdoer in place of retalitory force.

No. Here's Rand on this point:

If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to other the right to force his mind.  That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate.  I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason.  I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think.  I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer's wish to kill me.  When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him - by force.

To deal with a thug by reason is to sanction the use of force - as Rand says, it grants him the terms of reason.

What's interesting is that you are remarkably consistent on this point. In advocating a non-coercive response to coercion, you confess to not grasping the fundamental difference between force and persuasion. It is because you don't see the fundamental difference between force and persuasion that you can't see why the use of retaliatory force cannot be left up to the discretion of each individual, but must be delegated to a government if one wishes to live in society, i.e., among other men. To you, force is just another means of dealing with people.

That's why you said, "the way to resolve disputes should 'always' be an appeal to rational faculties of men, and when that is not possible, the use of force is appropriate." Notice that what you didn't say: you didn't say "force should only be used in retaliation." Instead you say, "when an appeal to" reason isn't possible. On your premises, force isn't limited ONLY to retaliation. It's simply another way to deal with men, albeit a "last resort."

That said, one could reasonably (and you did) find fault with my first statement.  I still stand by it regardless.  Yes, there are instances in which one is able to solve the problem by reasoning with the wrongdoer and yet finds it still preferable to use force; however, in daily circumstances, its "always" better not to use force when it is not necessary to solve the problem.  Notice the scare quotes both here and in my original post.  I do allow for exceptions to this rule.
Let's be clear. I was not saying that in daily circumstances we as individuals should resort to force when we are victims of force. Except in cases of immediate self-defense, we must delegate that right to the government, otherwise civilized society is impossible. But the government must never grant the terms of reason to a thug.

Regardless, the point of my statement was to say that in a system of multiple governmental institutions, the process of solving disputes is fundamentally the same as it would be if there were just one such institution.

That's the claim I won't debate, because I think it's beyond, or I should say, beneath debate. It's the point Rand addressed explicitly in "The Nature of Government."

Let me rephrase what I meant --- 

A person should have right-to-life respected both in his production and trade of food AND his production and trade of protection services.

Well, okay, except that's not what you mean. What you mean is that an individual should have the right to use retaliation as he sees fit, whether by his own hand or through an intermediary. And that gets us back to Rand's argument for government.

My arguement is simple.

A person should have right-to-life respected both in his production and trade of food AND his production and trade of protection services (and other governmental goods and services)

Different people will have different wants (as far as food goes and certainly as far as governmental goods and services go)

Who decides how much money I want to spend on my government? How many police officers and how much of their time? What will their policies be? How professional are they? Do I care to spend money to protect my neighboors? This list of choices available to citzens is endless.

And so long as this endless list of choices is available to individuals, people willing to sell them and people willing to buy them, there should not be a "monopoly" on governmental institutions.  If it were a natural economic monopoly, great, but I suspect that is not what you mean by monopoly in this context.

Right, your argument is that a man has the right to impose his will on others by force. That's exactly what I said, and that's exactly what this here says. Notice the word you use: "Different people have different wants." They sure as hell do, and so long as they aren't using force, they can want anything they want, say anything they want, and do anything they want. But you want(!) them to be able to do anything they want to others. That's the only thing the above can mean in practice. And why can't you see that? For exactly the reason I named at the get go: rationalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are examples of Living Student's premises all through history. Al Capone would agree with him -- right down to the "free market" protection racket. He was very adept at the competition involved in persuading individuals to go with his particular services. And if you didn't like his services, or those of the gang across town, you could always bring in protection from New York.

Of course, lots of innocents died, but what the hey! It's their own fault for not choosing, right?

Of course, one needn't go back to our own history for some fine examples; there are plenty to be had all around the world, in any tribalist society one cares to point to. There's always that pesky problem of one protection service being superior to the others and taking over completely, a la Saddam's clan, for example. But it's a free market for thugs and it's might that makes right, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who decides how much money I want to spend on my government? How many police officers and how much of their time? What will their policies be? How professional are they? Do I care to spend money to protect my neighboors? This list of choices available to citzens is endless.

And so long as this endless list of choices is available to individuals, people willing to sell them and people willing to buy them, there should not be a "monopoly" on governmental institutions. If it were a natural economic monopoly, great, but I suspect that is not what you mean by monopoly in this context

This is the nature of why states, or maybe even counties depending on the population density in the area, should be the ones to decide Police funding. Though it does not allow the decision to be up to an individual, essentially becuase the police force has to cover a certain area that more than one person occupys, it allows an individual to have more say in the decision. Competing governements are not required. A democratic(in the literal sense of the word) election of people to manage government forces IS the competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel very misunderstood (and I am)

It may not be necessary; however, I'd like to ask anyone who responds to my posts to be sure they are responding to the things that I am actually saying.

A few points:

My older brother and I recently had a small fight over property rights of our living area. I made the mistake of using a curse word close to him and he, having anger problems, couldn't handle it without initiating the use of force to remove me from the premises.

Well, I'm outside. What is it in my interests to do? Call the cops? Hardly. I reasoned with him and 30 minutes later I was inside explaining to him why I thought he was wrong.

This is what I mean. I could have called the cops or threatened him some sort of legal action, but it wasn't in my interests. Waiting a little for him to cool down and reasoning with him was.

So, in this instance, what did I do to undermine reason? How did I sanction my brother's behavior?

My next point:

That's why you said, "the way to resolve disputes should 'always' be an appeal to rational faculties of men, and when that is not possible, the use of force is appropriate." Notice that what you didn't say: you didn't say "force should only be used in retaliation." Instead you say, "when an appeal to" reason isn't possible. On your premises, force isn't limited ONLY to retaliation.
Please. I believe I (or we) had established a context. I was talking about how one deals with wrongdoers and assuming that force had already been initiated against us. You can ask me about my premises in the future instead of REACHING for grounds to find me wrong.

Right, your argument is that a man has the right to impose his will on others by force...

My objection above applies to this paragraph also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now for the real substance ...

Except in cases of immediate self-defense, we must delegate that right to the government, otherwise civilized society is impossible.

This the only thing you said that I have any real positive interest in discussing.

If someone is being abused or attacked in someone way and I step in to protect them aren't I acting as a policeman? I'm not defending myself or lets say anyone I know.

Is it just the punishment part that you reserve for the government?

Why is it that the government officials can do certain things and I cannot? What do I need to be recognized by you as capable for the same work they do?

Certainly not just the badge and the uniform?

I really don't know what you think on this subject and would be interested if you cared to comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what I mean.  I could have called the cops or threatened him some sort of legal action, but it wasn't in my interests.  Waiting a little for him to cool down and reasoning with him was.

So, in this instance, what did I do to undermine reason?  How did I sanction my brother's behavior?

This is a trivial example that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Maybe you don't remember how this topic was raised, but I do. You wrote:

There are many instances in which one might be wronged (stolen from, defrauded or physically attacked) and have it in his interests to resolve the problem by appealing to the rational faculites of the wrongdoer in place of retalitory force.

Your example was poorly chosen if what you're trying to prove is that we should attempt to appeal to a criminal's rational faculty.

Please.  I believe I (or we) had established a context.  I was talking about how one deals with wrongdoers and assuming that force had already been initiated against us.  You can ask me about my premises in the future instead of REACHING for grounds to find me wrong.
But I didn't say anything that isn't literally true. Remember what I wrote:

That's why you said, "the way to resolve disputes should 'always' be an appeal to rational faculties of men, and when that is not possible, the use of force is appropriate." Notice that what you didn't say: you didn't say "force should only be used in retaliation." Instead you say, "when an appeal to" reason isn't possible. On your premises, force isn't limited ONLY to retaliation.

If everyone is free to use force at his own discretion, as you wish him to be, then force isn't limited only to retaliation - there is no government to do the limiting. My point wasn't that you were intending to advocate any such thing: my point is that your quoted statements were unintentionally consistent with what I've argued your view must mean in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone is being abused or attacked in someone way and I step in to protect them aren't I acting as a policeman?  I'm not defending myself or lets say anyone I know.

So? When I said "immediate self-defense" I didn't mean to exclude "immediate defense of others." Obviously I mean to exclude retaliatory force. It's not as if my right to help the victim of a crime results from him delegating his right to self-defense to me.

Is it just the punishment part that you reserve for the government?

Why is it that the government officials can do certain things and I cannot?  What do I need to be recognized by you as capable for the same work they do?

Certainly not just the badge and the uniform?

I really don't know what you think on this subject and would be interested if you cared to comment.

I need to know that you are enforcing objective and moral laws, in an objective and moral fashion. I need to know that you are acting for the proper ends by the proper means. In other words, I need to live in a society where men are barred from initiating force.

What you are advocating is a society (or, more precisely, a non-society) where a man's ability to use force is restrained only by the size of his gang. There is no alternative to that fact, no way around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a trivial example that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Maybe you don't remember how this topic was raised, but I do. You wrote:

QUOTE

There are many instances in which one might be wronged (stolen from, defrauded or physically attacked) and have it in his interests to resolve the problem by appealing to the rational faculites of the wrongdoer in place of retalitory force.

Your example was poorly chosen if what you're trying to prove is that we should attempt to appeal to a criminal's rational faculty.

It does show that there are many instances in which we have it at our interests to appeal to the criminal's rational faculty. It is a case in point. A scenario which is extremely common. You might call them small domestic issues.

I wasn't trying to prove that we should attempt to appeal to a criminal's rational faculty regardless of circumstances. But that there are many instances which one might be wronged (stolen from, defrauded or physically attacked) and have it in his interest to resolve the problem by appealing...like I said at first.

To address the second half of your post:

But I didn't say anything that isn't literally true. Remember what I wrote:

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I believe you did.

On your premises, force isn't limited ONLY to retaliation.
This is wrong. Retalitory and defensive uses of force are the the only civil kinds as oppposed to initiatory force.

But each individual should be free to use both defensive AND retalitory force.

I understand that you ...

I need to know that you are enforcing objective and moral laws, in an objective and moral fashion. I need to know that you are acting for the proper ends by the proper means.

But it is not my duty to provide you with the proof that I am doing so. I should be glad to do so under most circumstances, but again, its not my duty to make sure everyone else is knows that what I am doing is right. Its quite satisfactory that I know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it that the government officials can do certain things and I cannot?  What do I need to be recognized by you as capable for the same work they do?

Certainly not just the badge and the uniform?

No, not just because of a badge and a uniform. Because of the training, knowledge and testing that in more cases than not are provided to the person in the uniform with the badge. You appear to take it personally that a complete stranger would not accept that you are competent to act as an enforcer of the law. That's not necessarily the case. There is no way of knowing from one Joe Citizen to the next who is competent and capable of enforcing the law with proper knowledge of the law and proper defensive and offensive tactical training.

With a police officer, in most cases there can be a safe presumption that the person behind the "uniform and the badge" has been trained in those areas and is capable of doing the job. And yes, I know there are some exceptions.

VES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...