Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Ilya Startsev

Integrating Wealth and Health

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The alternative to being poor is greed. The problem with socialistic countries is that they do not allow the freedom of greed for the general populace. Capitalistic countries allow such freedom. To me, greed is a childish freedom. So, when will the greedy grow up to a global society? An even more interesting question is: how will they grow up?

A recurring argument against socialism is wealth. Capitalism is the optimal way to acquire wealth. But what is wealth? Aren’t the two components of wealth greed and quality? Greed is a potential result of quality, but quality does not depend on greed. When you look at the socialistic countries, you find them relatively unwealthy. But when you look at the capitalistic countries, you find people there relatively unhealthy, and thus unhappy. So, the two components of health are wellbeing and happiness. Does health depend on quality? Yes, but it does not depend on greed. So, we have to come up with a new form of society that will allow quality and health. Quality comes from incentives. Must incentives be monetary? No, but they must depend on what people value in a society. Money allows people the freedom of greed, but what would only allow the freedom of quality? The idea is to transmute greed into thinking about Society.

From Atlas Shrugged, Dagny: "there's something about people that I can't understand. [...] They dislike me, not because I do things badly, but because I do them well."

Rand mistakes the reason for disliking by considering just the fact of competence (also purpose and productivity in her view) rather than the state of being arrogant or selfish (also self-esteem in Objectivist interpretation). To her, they are indistinguishable and in linear relationship. However, she should have known that competence and selfishness do not always go hand in hand. She was afraid of losing purpose in life by losing competence, but she did not have to lose competence - just lower that blind selfishness, that's all.

This is to say that what competence is to wealth is maybe what self-esteem is to health, but they are not the same thing. We need to differentiate and identify these concepts before we find a way to integrate them.

Here is a model for debate:
1) Purpose = productivity (= labor) = competence (I don't have a problem with these equations) ->? wealth
2) Self-esteem (->? health) =/= competence (health ->? competence, competence ->? happiness (purpose -> happiness from aynrandlexicon.com)
3) wealth = quality (= quantity by Aristotelian phase transitions and the second law of dialectics) -> greed (i.e., accumulation of wealth; wealth as an end in itself)
4) health = wellbeing -> happiness
5) wealth ->? health (if this is proven, then Objectivism will win this argument)
6) quality (-> greed ->?) -> wellbeing -> happiness
where "->" means a transition or some dynamic process defined as a part or a whole of a human life or activity

If you say that wealth necessarily leads to health, then, to me, this is the same as saying that a flower only needs water to survive. Water is like wealth, sunshine is like health. Both are absolutes and for their own sakes. How do they connect? Is the flower that is watered in a basement the same as a wild flower?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. So, the alternative to being poor is to have childish freedom!
  2. While the recurrent argument against socialism might be its poverty, that was not Rand's primary argument.
  3. Greed is not wealth, and hunger is not food.
  4. The idea that people in more capitalistic-leaning countries are relatively unhealthy is not just false, it is ludicrous. 
  5. The idea that people in such countries are relatively happy is false.
  6. Greed is motivation...it is basically synonymous. The idea of increasing people's motivation by reducing their greed is a logical contradiction.
  7. Obviously all incentives do not have to be monetary... strawman.
  8. Obviously, money is a means to an end... the only reason people want money is to get what money can buy. The incentive is thus not money, but food, and clothes, and housing, and all sorts of other values. You can try doing away with money as an incentive, but only by doing so with such values as an incentive. The idea of doing away with values as a way to gain values is ludicrous.
  9. Rand does not mistake reason for disliking. She's the author in that scene, making up her reality. the idea that people always have good reasons for disliking others is false. As an author, Rand is free to describe such a scene. 
  10. Not sure what gobble-de-gook you're saying about Rand being afraid of losing competence.
  11. Selfishness is not blind, unselfishness is blind.
  12. Obviously wealth does not have to lead to wealth in an individual case. Don;t use that strawman in addition your false statement that welath leads to unhealthiness
  13. On the other hand, it is obvious to even the most casual observer that with growing material values (aka wealth), comes better sanitation, more private space, more medicines, more medical equipment, more knowledge... and -- thence,longer lives People who retire and go on world tours today are a recent phenomenon

 

Do you have any true premises to offer?

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the alternative to being poor is to have childish freedom!

Sounds dumb from the first glance, doesn't it? Yes, it's a childish freedom to steal, for example, or in any way acquire wealth that is for the sake of wealth only. Poor people can do reckless things in order to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds dumb from the first glance, doesn't it? Yes, it's a childish freedom to steal, for example, or in any way acquire wealth that is for the sake of wealth only. Poor people can do reckless things in order to change.

I think it might be because mangos come in both colors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

softwareNerd, do you believe in climate change?

The climate seems to be different every year, but it is clear that good climate leads to good health and capitalism may or may not contribute to climate change. From this we can tell that capitalism may also contribute to climate change. However, it the change is the opposite of the bad one, then it might be good. it won't be clear if this is just good for some individuals or for society at large. it is possible, after all, that some consciousnesses find it to be good while being false, but others find it to be less so. 

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's have laissez-faire capitalism and see what happens.

Sometimes people in favor of capitalism complain that we've never really seen anything near an extremely free economy. Meanwhile, on the other side, the commies complain that communism has never really been given a proper chance. So, they both will continue to argue for their theory while saying that it has never been tried in real life, but is sure to work if anyone ever gave it a chance. 

 

Of course we know that economies that have generally been termed capitalist have been far more successful than those that have been generally termed communist. For a while, economists thought it was birth pangs. They praised all sorts of things about the so-called communist countries and said that it was clear that they would overtake the so-called capitalist ones. Even bailing out starving Russians from their self-imposed famine did not seem to have an impact; surely, said many western intellectuals, this is the temporary and necessary adjustment of the factors of production and social consciousness. All the way to the 1980s, western intellectuals were claiming that the soviet economy was growing faster than the U.S. economy, and would clearly surpass it sometime in the future. Reality should not come in the way of good theory, heh?

 

Meanwhile, the so-called communist countries would adopt some small bourgeois mechanism, like Lenin's N.E.P., and the Chinese Schenzen zone. Of course, while so many in the the west could not see the reality, folks in the so-called communist countries could see it too clearly. In some, they revolted and adopted all sorts of "capitalistic" institutions. They also adopted all sorts of bourgeois values. In other such countries, the leaders held on and continued to call their countries "communist" while doing all the things that the so-called "capitalists" did.

 

Here's the funny thing that is not so funny: success does not come from the label, but from the reality. And, it does not take purity to create success. We live in a real world, not in some kind of argument that collapses flat with a single contradiction. We live in a world where a person can be free to eat beef, but not to eat pork; where he can be free to set up a store and borrow from his family and to take on partners, but not to pay interest on a conventional loan. Another person, across the border, may be allowed to borrow money, but may not be allowed to build his factory with it unless he obeys all sorts of rules that make his cost double that of the guy who had to take an expensive loan (they both abstain from pork). It is virtually impossible to come up with a single standard objective unit with which to measure the degree of freedom along all the various axes, and combine them in a way that is indisputable.

 

Nevertheless, beyond all this ambiguity and whirls within whirls the general principle is so clear that only a professor in an ivory tower can deny it and theorize some dream-world of fiction where things will actually be pure and better, the principle is so clear that even the die hard opponents see it and hope to co-opt it, the principle is that wealth is broadly proportional with the degree to which individuals are allowed to pursue that highest calling of man without impediment from priest or politician: the greed for values.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not for sale either, but I've negotiated and renegotiated my terms for rent as the climate, which may or may not have been affected by capitalism, has changed.

 

I did find a notebook from my high school years. It contained notes extolling communism. If it had not been in my handwriting, I would not have know I had wrote it. Fortunately, my grades depended on me being able to regurgitate what the teachers had told me at the time, and not on what I was actually able to learn.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My values are not for sale. Nonetheless, should I vote for Evangelical Tea Party Republicans and watch Fox News?

There are all sorts of reasons to watch news programs. Some people watch Hannity and Sharpton get confirmation of their version of the truth. Others watch them to get confirmation of how stupid the "other side" is. Some watch in order to make a judgement about them, one way or the other. Perhaps there are some who watch in an attempt to ignore the rhetoric and glean the underlying news and issues that are current. And, then there is the viewer who is just fed up of equally inane drama shows, "reality" shows, but the sleeping pills aren't working yet. You can watch Fox if you like. Watch it a little or a lot. The same with MS-NBC and CNN. The same with the Daily Show or Stephen Colbert, Rachel Maddow, Rush Limbaugh.

Voting is somewhat the same. You can avoid doing it altogether, as a waste of your time, or you can throw in your lot and decide if one poison is truly better than another. It is up to you to decide if you want to vote for people who will boss other people around about whom they marry, whether they get high, whether they can have abortions, whether they can be kept out of land their own ancestors came to a few generations ago; or, you can vote for people who will boss other people around about whether they will eat salt, whether they can choose a school for their kids, whether they can keep a little more of their money, whether they can choose their own health-care, etc. And, while voting, remember that both sides are fairly sympathetic to the others in many areas where the other is primary. So, both sides are willing to cross over and boss people around in areas that are somewhat secondary to them.

And do not confuse this bossiness for a purely pathological psychology or a purely emotional thing. That would be to make the same mistake you have accused others of committing: of ignoring reasons and of assigning impure motives where reasons lie. No, make no mistake that it is ideology, and a desire to help others, and the desire to have a society that is more and better than those others, that drive the bosses. They see society -- as you do -- as being more primary and fundamental (in ethical terms) than individuals. What matters it if some billionaire has one less luxury car if a poor person can be given a bowl of soup; what matters it if some middle-class kid has to do without a computer for his high-school years, until we have money to give computers to all high-schoolers. They also see the social consciousness as more wise than the individual. Silly individuals might think that salt is okay in their meals, but the wise scientific consensus knows better, and the individual is helped by forcing him to do what others think is rational, and perhaps we can even hypothesize that we are helping him fight his own emotional, irrational desires. The whole is bigger than the parts and ought to be wiser, say these T.V. pundits and those who are voted into power. The argument is about the means. Jack-boots are so old-fashioned, and the plebs will rebel. The modern pundits advocate "nudges" instead.

In other words, if you look a few levels deep, the worst examples on Fox news and the worst examples in the tea-party share their deepest ideology with the worst among their opponents. But, what is more, they share that level of their ideology with you!

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, sNerd, the following is true:

1. There is no practical way to implement your type of capitalism.
2. You ignore the existence or the effects of work stress, unhealthy workaholism, and extreme careerism.
3. Simple living is boring to you.
4. You do not believe that there should be managers or any authority.
5. Objectivism is an anti-idealism and an anti-ideology.
6. You are so afraid of death that in order to escape it you will allow the destruction of the world (or society).

7. You think that there should be cancer (the disease).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ilya :

4. You do not believe that there should be managers or any authority.

 

I can't answer for SN, though from his comment I do not think he believes what you impute to him, I am curious to see your answer to this item. Managers and authority, exactly what are 'they' and why are they needful, in a free society, or is it that the need for them proves society can't /shouldn't be free, or that individuals should only have a certain level of freedom within a society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ilya,

1. There is no practical way to implement your type of capitalism.

 

I would have to concur with tadmjones opening regarding the impugning this to SN.

 

What would you consider the practical steps to implementing any political idea, outside of passing a law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ilya :

4. You do not believe that there should be managers or any authority.

 

I can't answer for SN, though from his comment I do not think he believes what you impute to him, I am curious to see your answer to this item. Managers and authority, exactly what are 'they' and why are they needful, in a free society, or is it that the need for them proves society can't /shouldn't be free, or that individuals should only have a certain level of freedom within a society?

Rearden, Dagny Taggart, Roark, etc. are managers of their own businesses. I want to point out to you that not all managers are Objectivists. However, you seem to think that your views are absolute and thus the views of everyone, and at the same time that there are those who think (Objectivists) and those who do not think (not Objectivists).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ilya,

1. There is no practical way to implement your type of capitalism.

 

I would have to concur with tadmjones opening regarding the impugning this to SN.

 

What would you consider the practical steps to implementing any political idea, outside of passing a law?

Social support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, sNerd, the following is true:

1. There is no practical way to implement your type of capitalism.

You misread me and put words in my mouth. By the way, nor was I trying to argue that "pure communism" is impractical either. Nothing I said is about the practicality of any perfect form. That is a wholly different argument, for another day. My point is that this argument -- about whether we have ever had one perfect form or another perfect form -- elevates words above reality, instead of understanding that words are a way to describe reality. To really understand reality, drop the single word "communism" or "capitalism" and understand the host of things they represent and subsume in reality. A whole host of ideas, attitudes, rules, ownership laws, legal systems, are subsumed by two words.

With any freedom we can clearly have an absolute prohibition or an absolute freedom: you can eat pork, or you cannot. Equally clearly, we can have all sorts of mixture: you can eat pork if you were born to a parent who does profess Islam, and as long as you buy it from the few Christian-owned stores that are only allowed in Christian-majority neighborhoods. Or, perhaps you can have an abortion but only if you first speak to a counselor who will show you pictures of fetuses, pointing out how they look like children. Or perhaps you can bring gold into the country as long as it is less than 10 oz. per year. Or, perhaps you can buy liquor, but only from the Toronto-government owned store.

That is reality. Now, would it makes sense to jump up and ask: "Do you mean that complete freedom in the purchase of pork, the having of abortions, the procurement of liquor and the importation of gold and impractical". Huh? Of course not, who ever claimed they are? And, further, who claimed that the opposite was not possible either: can be have an absolute ban on all those things. Sure. But, it really is besides the point. The point is that, while having all sorts of mixtures, one can still often make a judgement about whether one place has more freedom in some such area, or less. And, one can observe the effects of such freedom, or lack of it. One can study a people who are allowed to practice their greed and achieve all sorts of great values, and one can do this even if those people go to a religious place once a week and apologize for their greed -- i.e. for their best virtues that they suspect might contain an element of sin.

The point is that perfection is besides the point, and even if one were to grant that perfection is impossible, the course of real-world action would not change one iota. The point is that one can measure the efficiency of a machine even if you claim that a 100% efficient machine is impossible. Imagine engineers designing a machine, trying to take out elements of friction from some moving part, and add to elements of friction in some other part that is used for braking and traction. They aren't reduced to an effectively-nihilistic, "anything goes" attitude just because they can never achieve perfect absence of friction or perfect rigidity. Nor do they throw up their hands and say they can never know or measure friction because they can never reduce it to zero. So, if you want to argue that perfect capitalism is like a friction-less world, do so, but it is really besides the point, and impractical; because, even if you are right, it gets you nowhere. Even if you are right, the reality still holds: that freedom works!

 

2. You ignore the existence or the effects of work stress, unhealthy workaholism, and extreme careerism.

Of course not, but you are mistaken if you think that these are elements of Capitalism. The truth is just the opposite. I do not know your background, but you clearly do not understand the reality of living in a third-world mixed economy with its fetters on freedom that hold back the noble greed of its population. Look closer and you will see that everyday life is a struggle to these people, for whom your first-world problems simply do not compute! Most of the angry youth of the middle-east, under their nationalist-socialist leaders want an honest job and an honest living and are willing to work hard for it. They seek a life of purpose, of ambition, and of the ability to give their greed full vent. They seek the freedom to have a job, offered them by businessmen who are given the freedom to provide such jobs. They aspire to do their best in such mythical careers they have heard of, and that they see on T.V. and via the internet. Two decades ago, much of the world's population was there, but we have seen an era of great opening, great freedom, great greed, great careers, lots of hard work, and lot, and lots of values.

Nobody should be forced to work. Those who think of work as pain, who see it as a rat's race, and who want to retire in their twenties, should go ahead and do so. Freedom means that nobody stops people from going their own way. In America and every other country that allows people to pursue their ambitions and careers way more than any communist state ever did, there are still people who are not interested. Sometimes, they stay in their backwoods, sometimes they get together with a group of their college friends and found a commune. They can go their merry way, and more power to them, to find their way. If their truth is never my truth, then it is their loss in my mind, and my loss in theirs. Peace unto them. Nobody here would argue that they should be stopped. May they go their way in peace; but, they should go their way, not force the greedy career-seeking ambitious folk to subsidize a philosophy into which they do not buy. They can go their way as long as they do not use the government to impose their philosophy via a welfare state.

Meanwhile, there are many rational folk who think that primitive man did not have it good, but nevertheless do not think it is worth pursuing some material values, but prefer what you would call "the simpler life". Why would I see any problem with this? Do you think Objectivism recommends the maximization of physically, material values? One fictional Objectivism hero feels so strongly about his art that he is willing to work in a quarry rather than corrupt his aesthetic vision and become rich and famous. That, by the way, is true ambition. Sometimes, people unfairly accuse Rand of being anti motherhood -- mostly via a perceived sin of omission; but, in reality I know quite a few Objectivists who have given up typical careers to stay home with their children. For people who chose it, I assume they are making the right choice. In the Fountainhead, Rand shows a pathetic creature who gives up what he loves, for a career that gets him money and fame, and a life as an unhappy, unfulfilled, other-directed specimen, who has never ever given vent to the real greed he felt deeply, but instead bowed to what the world told him to pursue. Like Shakespeare said: ambition should be made of sterner stuff.

The bottom-line: no, mindless, purposeless careers, and accumulation of material values for their own sake are not an Objectivist ideal... just the opposite.

 

3. Simple living is boring to you.

Have you ever been lost on a mountain with dwindling food supplies, which taste like a Ritz meal to your famished stomach, while you pass the water bottle to your friend so he can take his rationed two-sips, while you wonder what you will do at sunrise to make your way out? It was pretty simple, but hardly boring; and a dog had tagged along and adopted us, making us feel a little sliver of hope that human beings must be somewhere within a few miles.

For a more substantial answer, see my previous point.

 

4. You do not believe that there should be managers or any authority.

That's pretty gratuitous, particularly given that there've been times in my life where I have managed teams of people and not only did I think it right, but I thought it was enjoyable. These were all willing people who were in an organization they joined of their own free will. Something you may not know is that being a manager does not mean knowing the best about everything, but knowing what other people want and what they aspire to, and in creating an environment where they can give the fullest reign to their greed for pursuit of purpose and creation of values.

It is also ironic, is it not, that you would tell a forum moderator that he believes that there should be no authority. But, I understand your problem... you make the classic error of being unable to distinguish between authority that comes within a legitimate, consensual system, versus one that flows from the guns of Kim Jung Il. Like some modernists, perhaps you claim that marriage is rape?  And, let me stop you before you say "why talk of extremes", and refer you back to point #1.

 

5. Objectivism is an anti-idealism and an anti-ideology.

Ah! so, the philosophy that seeks perfect capitalism is anti-perfection. It is rather novel for Rand to be accused of being a wishy-washy non-idealist. Usually, she is accused of being rigid and impractical. Usually, Objectivists are accused of being so idealistic that they will not be happy in their life-times (i.e. ever). The accusations even motivated Rand to specifically publish an essay defending Objectivists against the accusation of "extremism". So, it is novel that you say this, and not boring, but still untrue.

 

6. You are so afraid of death that in order to escape it you will allow the destruction of the world (or society).

Honestly, you seem tired now! You're veering away from rational conversation. The notion that the destruction of the world will save me from death is pretty wild. How could anyone ever come to such a conclusion? I know have better value to offer, other than gratuitous accusations that come from your consciousness, unsupported by anything else? Do not fall prey to the error of the driven-debater, who sacrifices truth for ephemeral polemic victory. The crowds are not impressed in the long run, and truth wins out instead.

 

7. You think that there should be cancer (the disease).

At this point, rather than an appropriately rude reply, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say "get some sleep" and come back refreshed with an attitude that only the truth matters... even if you lose the argument in the process. The most corrupt thing you can do to your mind is to make winning an argument a primary end. That is the primacy-of-consciousness principle gone wild; it will eat your brain from the inside out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a mistake to consider this by the given terms; they're only symptomatic of the real problem.

The crux of it is the dichotomy between "greed" and "need".

What's the difference? Don't assume it's arbitrary; Ilya seems perfectly capable of discerning between them.

"Your fear of death is not love of life."

What he means by "greed" is true desire; desire which isn't motivated by fear.

Businessmen serve as an eloquent example of this but they aren't the actual dispute; it's their motivation which Ilya rejects.

What he means by "greed" is love of life.

And he considers it immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sNerd, you keep stripping off any problems inside capitalism and calling them non-capitalism, but you are right theoretically and your points are well taken (and not forgotten, hopefully). So, as you said, let's be realistic. Let's have a global communist government and a capitalist system that is lesser regulated than currently in the U.S. That's what the Rockfellers, the Rothschilds, and others are doing starting with China. Let's support them. Everyone will be happy.

If you still (unrealistically) think that we should not have a global communist government, then here is another argument: What is more important for an Objectivist who is very sick and cannot work and has no family or friends: being unable to live his/her purpose in life or receive healthcare from the government (or non-Objectivists). Or should he simply die?


 

One step? That's amazing. The idea doesn't even require being discovered as long as it has social support? No steps required to disseminate it?

That is the first and thus most important step. Once you believe in it, everything else will come through collaboration.

 

It would be a mistake to consider this by the given terms; they're only symptomatic of the real problem.

The crux of it is the dichotomy between "greed" and "need".
What's the difference? Don't assume it's arbitrary; Ilya seems perfectly capable of discerning between them.

"Your fear of death is not love of life."

What he means by "greed" is true desire; desire which isn't motivated by fear.
Businessmen serve as an eloquent example of this but they aren't the actual dispute; it's their motivation which Ilya rejects.

What he means by "greed" is love of life.

And he considers it immoral.

Interesting. So we have Objectivist greed and corrupt greed. You know what, you may be even right. My soul is indeed tattered and happiness is not my goal (remember that I am from Russia, which is probably the most corrupt nation on the planet). I like how you idealize capitalism and businessmen. Corruption does not enter your minds. I guess that your pure beliefs are commendable. I will try to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's have a global communist government and a capitalist system that is lesser regulated than currently in the U.S.

No, let's not.

If you still (unrealistically) think that we should not have a global communist government, ... ...

Buddy, though you sound earnest, you have no leg to stand on when talking about realism or being realistic.

It's pretty clear that you have constructed some fictional system in your mind, and you are going to stick with it, come what may. It is not politics that should be your key concern, it is epistemology. Thinking is not a parlor game. Rationality is not the explosion of premises into conclusions, and the building of premise upon premise, without examining the reality of those premises.

You really need to introspect about your entire method of thinking, or you'll burn yourself out without reality as a fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the first and thus most important step. Once you believe in it, everything else will come through collaboration.

All I got to do is believe in it, and it will happen via collaboration? That's fantastic.

 

What time do the trains start running to cart off the dissenters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between Objectivist greed and the "greed" of corruption encompasses the entire moral spectrum. Until you grasp it you cannot even conceive in the 'dialect,' if you will, of Objectivism.

To put it in admittedly idealized terms:

A businessman is motivated by his love of achievement; not mere money but earned money.

A beaurocrat is motivated by his desire to impede such success; not mere money but the taking of money away from---

There are, of course, corrupt businessmen and noble politicians and every shade in between, and even those who aren't capable of seeing money as anything more than literal money (and consequently aren't worth comment). That's not the point.

The point is to grasp that distinction and subsequently ask yourself what drives a person to hate the sight of other people's happiness.

What do you think causes that?

---

This is all rhetorical, of course, since you're dodging the actual question (ergo cannot yet comprehend any of this).

But to equate one sort of "greed" with the other is a total obliteration of all abstract valuation of any sort.

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...