Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
happiness

Would Objectivists ever come together and settle in one place?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Obviously, this isn't in the near term future, but if the Objectivist movement was to grow to, say, a few hundred thousand, would there be any incentive for them to band together and settle in a common area? Would this even be desirable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the billions(!) of people on the planet were so bad, so far from any value to be traded so as to require fleeing, they wouldn’t stand for a band of 100,000 individualists, and would loot and kill us all. Otherwise, there would be value to be traded, and the more people, the more value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, happiness said:

any incentive for them to band together and settle in a common area?

Yes.  Living in a proper and moral society IS the incentive.

There are practical difficulties in finding and defending such a place from savages from the outside who would wish to pillage its resources and/or take it over and rule...  there are also practical difficulties from the inside, which include keeping the culture and philosophy strong, and not letting law making democracy destroy the constitutional republic which limits government to its proper role.

16 hours ago, happiness said:

Would this even be desirable?

Living in a moral and proper society would be invaluable to living a life on earth proper to man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, happiness said:

Obviously, this isn't in the near term future, but if the Objectivist movement was to grow to, say, a few hundred thousand, would there be any incentive for them to band together and settle in a common area? Would this even be desirable?

Your question opens a number of other questions:

I'll address the last question first: obviously a society formed on the Objectivist concepts of minimal government would be desirable. 

The practical creation of a micro-nation on earth comprised of Objectivists would have great difficulty protecting itself from hostile nations. It would also have problems with citizens who believe that there could be some "practical" solution to age-old problems, such as, common usage of certain resources and many of the very practical problems raised on this forum. What would prevent mysticism and altruism from reemerging as popular ideas? What would be the criterion for banishment? How would you qualify a citizen as being a "true" Objectivist? Would there be a court of judgment deciding ideological fitness of a citizen in question? The children of Obectivists may not necessarily agree with their parents. Would you create "special schools" for "proper orientation"? The real question of any nation's ability to endure would be the principles of its law of the land, its constitution. A society based on the protection of man's freedom would also protect his right to disagree with the majority.. 

Anyone promising utopia without working out the details should be held suspect. In my opinion, we will never see such a settlement of Objectivist on this planet, certainly not in the near-future. But, given time, perhaps a few hundred thousand committed Objectivists might stake out a piece of territory in fantastic futuristic experiment. It may become necessary for their survival. Atlas Shrugged was one such fantasy. Keep in mind that the citizens of Galt's Gulch had a fantastic futuristic means of defending their enclave. And we'll never know what sort of problems the next generation of Gulch dweller might have faced. All said, we will have to deal with reality as it is. For me, this means living my life for my own sake, defending my own person and ideas, and on occasion enjoying a persuasive conversation with a fellow traveler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Repairman said:

Your question opens a number of other questions:

I'll address the last question first: obviously a society formed on the Objectivist concepts of minimal government would be desirable. 

The practical creation of a micro-nation on earth comprised of Objectivists would have great difficulty protecting itself from hostile nations. It would also have problems with citizens who believe that there could be some "practical" solution to age-old problems, such as, common usage of certain resources and many of the very practical problems raised on this forum. What would prevent mysticism and altruism from reemerging as popular ideas? What would be the criterion for banishment? How would you qualify a citizen as being a "true" Objectivist? Would there be a court of judgment deciding ideological fitness of a citizen in question? The children of Obectivists may not necessarily agree with their parents. Would you create "special schools" for "proper orientation"? The real question of any nation's ability to endure would be the principles of its law of the land, its constitution. A society based on the protection of man's freedom would also protect his right to disagree with the majority.. 

Anyone promising utopia without working out the details should be held suspect. In my opinion, we will never see such a settlement of Objectivist on this planet, certainly not in the near-future. But, given time, perhaps a few hundred thousand committed Objectivists might stake out a piece of territory in fantastic futuristic experiment. It may become necessary for their survival. Atlas Shrugged was one such fantasy. Keep in mind that the citizens of Galt's Gulch had a fantastic futuristic means of defending their enclave. And we'll never know what sort of problems the next generation of Gulch dweller might have faced. All said, we will have to deal with reality as it is. For me, this means living my life for my own sake, defending my own person and ideas, and on occasion enjoying a persuasive conversation with a fellow traveler.

I'm not talking about the creation of a mico-nation, just a significant population of Objectivists setting somewhere within an established country. They wouldn't presume the right to banish people. Maybe they could shoot down the local school levies.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, happiness said:

I'm not talking about the creation of a mico-nation, just a significant population of Objectivists setting somewhere within an established country. They wouldn't presume the right to banish people. Maybe they could shoot down the local school levies.  

Let's suppose you settle in an established country. You'd have to live by the laws of their land, or put up some sort of resistance, likely resulting in an escalated conflict. "...shoot down the local school levies..."? What does that mean? Maybe you could develop your settlement-scenario for the benefit of clarity. I'd like to know what it is that you are imagining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Repairman said:

Let's suppose you settle in an established country. You'd have to live by the laws of their land, or put up some sort of resistance, likely resulting in an escalated conflict. "...shoot down the local school levies..."? What does that mean? Maybe you could develop your settlement-scenario for the benefit of clarity. I'd like to know what it is that you are imagining.

I imagine that, probably over a long period of time, either a lot of Objectivists would move to a given area or that a lot of people in a given place would become Objectists, resulting in a large Objectivist population whose members would eventually become influential in local politics. Yes, they would still be subject to the laws of external governments, but they could still accomplish things like abolishing the property taxes used to fund public schools and answering the cliche "who will build the roads?" (if not the government). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, happiness said:

I imagine that, probably over a long period of time, either a lot of Objectivists would move to a given area or that a lot of people in a given place would become Objectists, resulting in a large Objectivist population whose members would eventually become influential in local politics. Yes, they would still be subject to the laws of external governments, but they could still accomplish things like abolishing the property taxes used to fund public schools and answering the cliche "who will build the roads?" (if not the government). 

Start at the municipal level?  Interesting...

To be strategic for a moment... one could choose the freest country.  Then the province/state of the least population, the county/region of the least population within that province/state and the municipality/city/town in that county which is the smallest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivists are people, too. Best case scenario is that their philosophy is superior, but even that is not a given - do they practice what they preach? Even with a superior philosophy, have they been able to translate that into life success? Can they get along with others? That is, do they have value to trade?

People are people, too. They're not explicitly rational by choice, they don't explicitly pursue their own personal interests, but in practice, most do live this way most of the time. They are Objectivists to degrees and have translated that into life success, and have a lot of value to offer and trade.

The world will never, ever present itself to you as the polar choice illustrated in Atlas Shrugged. People are fluid, choosing to change or not change. Atlas Shrugged is meant to crystalize principles, allowing you to make better day to day choices for yourself. It's an exaggeration which will never be a reality, because people have the ability to choose and change, and few of them are all evil or all good. Even more so today, a "band together and separate" fantasy shouldn't be given a fleeting thought, when everyone carries around pocket computers representing perfectly all the value the world has to offer to trade, the world's largest country is heading in the right direction, poverty is low, etc. etc. Why would anyone want to run from that? The world's never been better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like the free state project. it's a very cool idea! it definitely is a big value to live around people with very similar philosophy, the problem is that there are so many competing considerations when it comes to where to settle down, too: jobs, climate, family...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only do it if we are a sovereign nation and we have secure borders and limited immigration like Israel does. No open borders like Binswanger and Brook advocate for America. Otherwise, non-objectivists would move in and contaminate the culture, just like Mexicans and Muslims have done to the United States.

On 9/25/2017 at 8:46 PM, JASKN said:

If the billions(!) of people on the planet were so bad, so far from any value to be traded so as to require fleeing, they wouldn’t stand for a band of 100,000 individualists, and would loot and kill us all. Otherwise, there would be value to be traded, and the more people, the more value.

Most people are generally good and won't commit murder. Even most Muslims are good and don't want to go around killing the infidel. Only a small minority practice violence. If there were 100,000 of us, and we were all armed to the teeth, we could carve out our own independent nation, and the only resistance we'd face would be from the country whose land we are claiming as our own nation. This would be a highly desirable outcome as we would soon excel the rest of the world in GDP per capita, technology, science, artwork, and overall happiness.

6 hours ago, JASKN said:

The world will never, ever present itself to you as the polar choice illustrated in Atlas Shrugged. People are fluid, choosing to change or not change. Atlas Shrugged is meant to crystalize principles, allowing you to make better day to day choices for yourself. It's an exaggeration which will never be a reality, because people have the ability to choose and change, and few of them are all evil or all good. Even more so today, a "band together and separate" fantasy shouldn't be given a fleeting thought, when everyone carries around pocket computers representing perfectly all the value the world has to offer to trade, the world's largest country is heading in the right direction, poverty is low, etc. etc. Why would anyone want to run from that? The world's never been better.

Agree that most people aren't all evil or all good. However a country of pure capitalism and objectivism would be desirable if only because it could be a shining beacon to the rest of the world, even more so than America is today. By world's largest country I don't know who you mean, Russia is the largest by land area and is generally headed in the right direction, while China is the largest by population and is a huge problem because of their aggressive ally North Korea. The USA is the largest economy and yes we are headed in the right direction under Trump but we have a long ways to go. Repealing the endless regulations and freedom-killing laws take time. Plus there is no political will to do things like repeal the so-called "Civil Rights Act," or legalize all drugs and sell them at the convenience store, or legalize prostitution, all of which would need to be done for freedom to truly reign. A new country with no existing laws on the book is our chance for a fresh start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Most people are generally good and won't commit murder. ...  This would be a highly desirable outcome as we would soon excel the rest of the world in GDP per capita, technology, science, artwork, and overall happiness.

I believe JASKN's point was that there's no reason to believe such a place would do particularly well economically -- at least compared to a western country like the U.S. 

Another way to look at it is that the richest 100 people in the U.S. probably don't include too many Objectivists. Why not? Clearly,  cronyism and connections aren't an adequate explanation, so what is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

I believe JASKN's point was that there's no reason to believe such a place would do particularly well economically -- at least compared to a western country like the U.S. 

In aggregate, no. The US has 300m+ people. Per capita is what matters when comparing nations. The lack of endless regulations and high taxes alone would probably add north of $10,000 per year to GDP per capita to Objectivist Land vs. the USA.

11 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

Another way to look at it is that the richest 100 people in the U.S. probably don't include too many Objectivists. Why not? Clearly,  cronyism and connections aren't an adequate explanation, so what is?

It's not required to have an objectivist philosophy in order to be wealthy. However, it is required to have a capitalist economy in order to maximize the amount of wealth that a person can obtain within a given country. Culture controls the economy so there must be a culture of selfish ethics in order to maintain a capitalist system. Otherwise we see endless assaults on it as we do in the USA. We fare better than others, though. How rich are the 100 richest people in Uganda, Yemen, or other such tribal societies, compared to our 100 richest? How much richer would these men be if US corporate tax rates weren't 39% on the highest earning corporations? The United States is far from a purely capitalist country and we haven't been since before Roosevelt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Culture controls the economy so there must be a culture of selfish ethics in order to maintain a capitalist system.

Though you meant this as we do not and cannot maintain a capitalist system with a good culture, which is true, I believe the statement is also true when read as an explanation for current world wealth -- "this selfish culture MUST be the explanation for why everything is so good!" We have decent remnants of a very good Western Culture, a little piece of which is in nearly every human on Earth, which explains our high modern standard of living.

4 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

I believe JASKN's point was that there's no reason to believe such a place would do particularly well economically -- at least compared to a western country like the U.S.

I also meant in other ways, like with individual mental wellbeing and interpersonal relationships. The past couple decades of Objectivists prove that the philosophy isn't an automatic ticket to happiness. It's simply an identification (as though it were simple to identify!) of what it takes to be a happy human. To your question, some people land on many of those identifications more instinctively (sometimes reading Rand and stating that she articulated what they'd always known), and lead better lives by sticking to it more than other people who read Rand and "know" the identifications, but for one reason or another struggle to apply them to their own lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, JASKN said:

The past couple decades of Objectivists prove that the philosophy isn't an automatic ticket to happiness.

 

What do you base that on? Not that I disagree.

It implies a flaw, a problem. Is it the people? The Philosophy? Isn't Pursuing a better understanding of Objectivism a part of the quest for happiness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

hat do you base that on? Not that I disagree.

It implies a flaw, a problem. Is it the people? The Philosophy? Isn't Pursuing a better understanding of Objectivism a part of the quest for happiness?

I think that it's because most objectivists fail to replicate the rapture and ecstasy felt by religious people in the presence of "god." But since God doesn't exist, really all those people are doing is fantasizing. There is no reason why we can't, though, so long as we acknowledge that the fantasy is not reality. In fact we should advocate fantasizing just as heavily as we advocate getting a good job.

I'm one of the happiest people I know. A good fantasy gets so many endorphins rushing in my brain that I can literally elevate myself out of depression, as happened most recently when I was depressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

I think that it's because most objectivists fail to replicate the rapture and ecstasy felt by religious people in the presence of "god." But since God doesn't exist, really all those people are doing is fantasizing. There is no reason why we can't, though, so long as we acknowledge that the fantasy is not reality. In fact we should advocate fantasizing just as heavily as we advocate getting a good job.

I'm one of the happiest people I know. A good fantasy gets so many endorphins rushing in my brain that I can literally elevate myself out of depression, as happened most recently when I was depressed.

I remember feeling joy knowing that I don't have to lie to myself anymore. That I don't have live in a fake world. I felt amazed that I could know the truth. I didn't have to think that I should feel guilty when I wanted to do something for me and me alone. I felt the ecstasy of letting go of unearned guilt and shame. I felt privileged knowing that I was one of the anointed, knowing that "public good" was a sham, that loyalty to any religion was a means of control by others, but most importantly, that I was worth something and that I was responsible to maintain it.

I knew that my life was important, but I did not know that I had a right to think that. The inner conflict settled down. There is a lot of pleasure when that happens.

I wanted the truth and meaning more than anything else, and I got it with Objectivism. I regret that I did not learn it as well as I could have. 

Objectivism provides endorphins too. Unlike a temporary fantasy, the truth does not abandon you, it does not die. The pleasure just becomes an unnoticed part of you.

The problem is more complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

It implies a flaw, a problem. Is it the people? The Philosophy? Isn't Pursuing a better understanding of Objectivism a part of the quest for happiness?

This question deserves a thread of its own really. I think there are some past threads that ask "Are Objectivist Happier" or something along those lines.

At a meta-level, regardless of the particular values, there's thought and action. All the thought in the world will only get you so far; and action without thought can be suicidal. So, understanding is only one part of the game. Also, thought --> to --> action is NOT unidirectional. It is easy to see how thought can cause action, but out there in the real world the direction is often the other way around. People do something, and they learn their lesson (not always, but that's how most lessons are learnt). I think Robert Tracinski concocted a term "Pajama Philosophy" to describe this process (I could be misquoting).

Just as important is this: clarity of understanding is great, but the marginal return from more clarity keep dwindling. In other words, imagine someone who lived 100 years ago -- i.e. never heard of Objectivism. However, imagine that he tries to be rational and in some way can express that this is a good thing. Imagine that he pursues some job -- let's say he's a carpenter (like Jesus :) ) and finds purpose in that, even though he can only describe this idea very roughly. And, assume he feels a sense of pride, not just in his work but in how he conducts his life. Perhaps he even talks about humility, and calls this type of pride by some other name. Here's is someone who has an understanding of the three cardinal virtues/values, without Objectivism even existing yet.

Lot's more can be said on this topic. So, more later.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

clarity of understanding is great, but the marginal return from more clarity keep dwindling

What about rationality, is there a dwindling marginal return on that?

We as a consciousness know that there is an absolute reality, an absolute truth. But we don't know all of it. So a lot of it is a mystery to us. We need tools to find it, to confirm it. A commitment to clarity is what makes it work. To give up on it is to give up on the desire to think. Isn't clarity the result of focus?

But to go back to the original post, isn't the different levels of clarity the problem with Objectivists not getting together? Doesn't it cause misunderstanding, disagreement, discord?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

But to go back to the original post, isn't the different levels of clarity the problem with Objectivists not getting together? Doesn't it cause misunderstanding, disagreement, discord?

I wouldn't have said clarity was the issue (I assume you mean clarity about Objectivism itself). I think that would be an issue with groups that try to make philosophical discussions central to their social interaction. However, making philosophy central to their social interaction may be the root of the problem. Does a church's congregation become friendly attending Bible study or at the church picnic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

Does a church's congregation become friendly attending Bible study or at the church picnic?

That is a loaded question. Are we a church or planning to be one?

I think that philosophical compatibility should help create a more cooperative group. If you have a majority that believes in "might is right", a feudal system will emerge. If you have a majority that believes that a free market will cure most economic ills, you will have another kind of society.

I wonder if the population of Objectivists low? Rand sells a lot of books and it influences governments. But I notice that many people are afraid of saying that they admire her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

That is a loaded question. Are we a church or planning to be one?

I think that philosophical compatibility should help create a more cooperative group. If you have a majority that believes in "might is right", a feudal system will emerge. If you have a majority that believes that a free market will cure most economic ills, you will have another kind of society.

I wonder if the population of Objectivists low? Rand sells a lot of books and it influences governments. But I notice that many people are afraid of saying that they admire her.

I was addressing your question about "Objectivists not getting together". I thought you might be asking about why Objectivist do not socialize more than they do. I guess you meant it in the sense of the OP: i.e. why Objectivists don't get together to form a sub-society of sorts. 

As for the population of Objectivist: it is pretty low. For starters, the number of people who self-identify as Objectivists is low. Then, within that, many believe that others within that self-identifying population are not Objectivists (and even anti-Objectivism). So, self-identifying Objectivist are a small group. And if you ask any of them to identify those who are plausibly Objectivists within that group, you'll get a group that's smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I think that philosophical compatibility should help create a more cooperative group.

While we might think that philosophical compatibility should help to create a more cooperative group, there are seeming features of the Objectivist community that lead me to wonder...

Many Objectivists approach the philosophy quite dogmatically. It sometimes seems like the smallest deviation from what is perceived to be orthodox opinion (or behavior) is met with strong rejection. Regardless of whether someone thinks this kind of behavior is appropriate for rational human beings, I'm not certain it makes for a cohesive or cooperative society.

I think these are issues that we can overcome, and probably should, before we try to create our own community.

Edited by DonAthos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

While we might think that philosophical compatibility should help to create a more cooperative group, there are seeming features of the Objectivist community that lead me to wonder...

Many Objectivists approach the philosophy quite dogmatically. It sometimes seems like the smallest deviation from what is perceived to be orthodox opinion (or behavior) is met with strong rejection. Regardless of whether someone thinks this kind of behavior is appropriate for rational human beings, I'm not certain it makes for a cohesive or cooperative society.

 

Dogmatism: "the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others."

By definition, it implies lack of philosophical compatibility. As in "some people just won't listen", won't hear the other side. The implication is that although:

"In any situation where there is reason to suspect that a variety of factors is relevant to the truth, only some of which are presently known, he is obliged to acknowledge this fact". OPAR (p. 172)... Some people will not apply that rule.

Dogmatism is prevalent in many belief systems. How does one balance out the certainty that they have gained due to their validation of their knowledge and an openness to seemingly untrue ideas? If you believe, to the best of your ability that the other person is incorrect, when do you give yourself the right to stop communicating? When can one call another person dishonest, or deluded, or not worth talking to?

 If I call someone dogmatic, as I sometimes do, the only way to break through is to "speak in their language". The question is are we speaking in different languages.(metaphorically speaking)?
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

How does one balance out the certainty that they have gained due to their validation of their knowledge and an openness to seemingly untrue ideas?

The nature of certainty, I believe, is something which needs to be explored further. I think that many folks (Objectivist and other) are looking for some permanent, final fix, such that whatever ideas or opinions they hold, they never need be challenged again, or subject to error, or revisited. I guess I understand the emotional motivation, but I question the pursuit overall, and I think its fruits rotten.

Once someone reaches the point that they no longer are willing to entertain the possibility of their being mistaken, they are cut off from further rational discourse. If we read this as me talking about, oh, religionists, then we within the Objectivist community will typically have a reaction of "oh, of course!" or similar. We would advise a religionist to "check his premises," even if he considers himself quite certain of the truth of his beliefs, and if he is not willing to do so, we would recognize that he will never be in the position to correct his errors. But if we read this as me talking about people within the Objectivist community, then all sorts of defenses are typically activated: what's this about "possibility" (and how does it relate to the "arbitrary"), and aren't some things proven beyond the point of doubt (and aren't the axioms immune), and what specific Objectivist ideas do I find questionable, and etc.

Yet there are a plethora of debates within the Objectivist community (to which this forum stands testament), and on that basis alone, we should not be insensitive to the need to continue to examine and re-examine our own ideas, to "check our premises" even against our own experience of certainty (which, again, needs further exploration). We all seem to consider ourselves "certain" -- even when and where we disagree with one another. Without what you describe as "an openness to seemingly untrue ideas," we are all sunk. We rely on that openness from people outside of the Objectivist community, if we mean to spread our ideas (without an openness to seemingly untrue ideas, I would never have read Ayn Rand in the first place); and we must recognize it as virtuous in ourselves, as well, if we mean to continue to eliminate the errors in our thinking.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

If you believe, to the best of your ability that the other person is incorrect, when do you give yourself the right to stop communicating?

I think no one has the obligation to try to convince another person of the truth of any given position (except as is necessitated by the pursuit of one's own values). So we all have the right to communicate, or not, as best suits our individual lives.

But it is a separate question as to when we may justly conclude that another person cannot be reached by reason. (And, further, to distinguish this from failures in communication; I may present a sound argument well or poorly, in a given context, and if I present my argument poorly, it may not be your "fault" if you reject it.)

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

When can one call another person dishonest, or deluded, or not worth talking to?

It's a tricky question, especially since I've found that some people may be quite rational with respect to certain subjects, and highly irrational or dishonest or evasive or etc., with respect to others. In general, I try to extend the "benefit of the doubt" as far as I can, and to keep all of the relevant context in mind; some people are very bad at expressing themselves (and we all struggle at times), and in my experience there's great potential to confuse such poor communication with moral failure.

This does not even begin to touch the subject of the process by which people discard bad ideas and adopt good ones; I have again found that "coming to truth" is a process which plays out over time, and it does not always proceed in a clear, straight line, or instantaneously. Some people express confusions honestly, or are mistaken honestly, or take (sometimes large amounts of) time to process ideas, and the ability to distinguish this from someone who is fundamentally irrational is... hard won, at best.

And then: people can change.

But, as above, I think we can recognize approaches that are not conducive to reasoning, and work on improving our own mental (and social) habits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×