Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Schooling in an Objectivist Society

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I have a few questions about how the United States would move from the current system of schooling to a private and free system.

We can all agree on the fact that a private school system would be moral and proper in a free society. What I am concerned about is how would this system work in theory, since we cannot observe it in practice. It appears to me that there is a difference between 'education' and 'schooling.' To paraphrase Milton Friedman not all schooling is education and not all education, schooling. It is apparent that government is currently involved in both, as it administers schooling, and sets minimal standards for education.

In an Objectivist society government should do neither of the above, correct? Should we then not be concerned about parents who will inevitably decide not to school and/or educate their kids, either because of financial reasons, troubles at home, personal beliefs, etc? Before you hit reply saying "why should we care for them" think through this. It is not for their benefit, it is for yours. It is in your benefit for my kid to become educated, is it not? An uneducated society will give rise to leaders who appeal to the uneducated (not to mention more criminals). The uneducated will surely elect leaders who will not promote ideas consistent with Objectivism.

I'm sure we can all agree that government should not operate a schooling system. But should government dictate that schooling is a must, or certain standards of education are a must? Moreover, how would any reforms be practically implemented? Surely there is no reason for government to engage in running a schooling system when private enterprise (either for profit or non-profit) could do the same thing better. It seems to me that a first step would be for government to continue using its revenues for schooling but to to let families have more of a choice. Enabling a sort of voucher system, where families can choose at minimum what school their tax money supports seems to be a good short-term idea. If this is the case, should government set minimal education standards for the privately operated schools and then enforce them, in much the same way it sets sanitation standards for restaraunts and enforces them?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you hit reply saying "why should we care for them" think through this. It is not for their benefit, it is for yours. It is in your benefit for my kid to become educated, is it not? An uneducated society will give rise to leaders who appeal to the uneducated (not to mention more criminals).

I did think it through, and my answer is still "why should we care for them?" Is an educated society in my interest? sure. But someone else's personal education is MORE in their interest than the general benefit of mine. As such, why isn't the primary driver their interest? It is in their interest because they stand to directly benefit materially from educating themselves. Why are we so sure that the uneducated are sure to miss that point entirely? Some will, most won't. Your hypothetical of the uneducated begatting more uneducated is wholy fallacious.

The minute you violate rights in order to force people to be smart enough to realize they have them, don't you think you've taken the first step down the slippery slope?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should we then not be concerned about parents who will inevitably decide not to school and/or educate their kids, either because of financial reasons, troubles at home, personal beliefs, etc?
Yes, we should care to some minimal extent about the flourishing of all humans, so we should care if parents dress their boys in frilly pink dresses, or waste days of shopping time looking for a Wii, or turn their children into vegans. We should care if parents tolerate hip-hop, or whether they have their children work for their allowance. What exactly do you mean by "care"? I only care enough about people who I actually know and who mean something to my life.
But should government dictate that schooling is a must, or certain standards of education are a must?
No.
Moreover, how would any reforms be practically implemented?
Like any government divestiture: sell the assets. I assume you mean "Suppose the Objectivism fairy waves her magic wand and the government gets out of the business of being in the wrong business. If you mean "How do we bring that about?", well, that's a tough one. Start working on your neighbors and work colleagues.
It seems to me that a first step would be for government to continue using its revenues for schooling but to to let families have more of a choice.
The first step is to end taxation. I take it you mean "The first step, if not actually ending taxation...".
Enabling a sort of voucher system, where families can choose at minimum what school their tax money supports seems to be a good short-term idea. If this is the case, should government set minimal education standards for the privately operated schools and then enforce them, in much the same way it sets sanitation standards for restaraunts and enforces them?
If that were the case, the government would impose some kind of state standards, so we don't need to put this in hypothetical terms. There should of course be standards, but they are not the concern of the state. The first step, IMO, should be to specify particular goals, and find a way to objectively determine how close the student has come to the goal. For example, can the student read and understand simple stuff; can they read a semi-technical manual; can they write a grammatical sentence; can they construct a coherent written explanation? If you have in mind that your child grows up to become a lawyer, you should look for a school with an emphasis on logical skills, reading and writing, and history and politics -- not sports, car maintenance or typing skills. We don't need government offices to tell us what standards must be met, the providers of the product should, rather, say "This is what we do".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's in everyones rational self-interest to have an educated society because the more educated the society, the more likely there will be geniuses who will produce, which benefits everyone. It's also not a matter of forcing this on people, but convincing them it's within their interest to make sure there are schools and the schools are doing a good job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An uneducated society will give rise to leaders who appeal to the uneducated (not to mention more criminals). The uneducated will surely elect leaders who will not promote ideas consistent with Objectivism.

The system would not be democratic. It would be constitutional republic. The principles governing the government (proper constitution restricting its role) would not be a subject to vote.

But should government dictate that schooling is a must, or certain standards of education are a must?

Standards would be set by a competitive market which creates much better incentive for quality (and that need for improvement is continuous instead static "good enough")

Moreover, how would any reforms be practically implemented?

There would be no need for educational reforms. Other reforms, if needed, could be written and presented to the public by well qualified portions of the populace (with appropriate qualifications on who is qualified to make such decisions).

If this is the case, should government set minimal education standards for the privately operated schools and then enforce them, in much the same way it sets sanitation standards for restaraunts and enforces them?

Both are not necessary. In a fully competitive market reputation is a great value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the more educated the society, the more likely there will be geniuses who will produce, which benefits everyone.

Geniuses are not created via mandatory education. Those of ability will rise regardless. If there is a will there is a way. There will be private scholarships, there will be people looking for talent, willing to pay for someone's eduacation who is worth investing. There will be people wanting to pay for university in exchange for this person working for them. Remember that it would be a system based on actual merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me sorta rephrase the original question. We can all agree on the fact that a voluntary system where everybody is fabulously wealthty would be moral and proper in a free society. What I am concerned about is how such a system could come about in theory. Should we not be concerned about people who are not fabulously wealthy and don't seem to have the gumption or ability to become wealthy? Shouldn't we all care about our neighbor becoming wealthy, because it's in our own self-interest?

Premising the discussion on the idea of being "caring" or concerned is a bad start, given the current political climate. There is the distinct possibility that being "uncaring" will be criminalized in the next 200 years, starting in California. Pay attention to what the uncivilized mob and their politicians are saying -- the whining is all about governments and businesses "not caring". I think that "caring" is becoming a very dangerous anti-concept in our society. The question ought to be "what's in it for me?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think voluntary programs to help the poor to become educated are beneficial to me, however, the minute they become mandatory it is unethical.

I'm all for any voluntary programs, even if it was Government organized.

If people don't trust in others to help voluntarily then too bad, they have no right to demand others to help if they choose not to.

Edited by Dorian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can all agree on the fact that a voluntary system where everybody is fabulously wealthty would be moral and proper in a free society. What I am concerned about is how such a system could come about in theory.

(bold mine)

I think that such situation is impossible. Some don't have the ability; others are not willing to put the necessary effort. That being said I strongly believe that the overwhelming majority would do quiet well in a free society. Well enough for me to not become worried about their impact (negative) on my life.

It is not true that people can't or won't take care of themselves, that they can't flourish when left alone. I think that flourishing is a natural (I don't mean automatic) human goal at any level of ability for most. The problem today is that not being responsible for yourself is encouraged.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geniuses are not created via mandatory education. Those of ability will rise regardless. If there is a will there is a way. There will be private scholarships, there will be people looking for talent, willing to pay for someone's eduacation who is worth investing. There will be people wanting to pay for university in exchange for this person working for them. Remember that it would be a system based on actual merit.

I think you missed this part of my post...

It's also not a matter of forcing this on people, but convincing them it's within their interest to make sure there are schools and the schools are doing a good job.

I'm not talking about mandatory education, just education period which would be voluntary for everyone involved, you have to convince people it's better to be educated then not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily think that you disagree. I am just addressing what you said.

you have to convince people it's better to be educated then not.

I don't think that there needs to be an effort directed toward that goal. Private educational institutions would do more than enough to promote education and its benefits as a part of promoting their business.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have to convince people it's better to be educated then not.

I have to? Why?

I'll ask the same thing that I asked the original poster...

Why are we so sure that the uneducated are sure to miss that point entirely?

The reality is that it is better to be educated than not. And for that very reason one does not need to convince people of it for they will suffer or benefit by their own recognition of that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's in everyones rational self-interest to have an educated society because the more educated the society, the more likely there will be geniuses who will produce, which benefits everyone. It's also not a matter of forcing this on people, but convincing them it's within their interest to make sure there are schools and the schools are doing a good job.

From what snippets I can remember, the reality of history was that private schools were very common indeed. The vast majority of people did not (and today do not) need convincing of their value. Whenever parents have had the wherewithal to send the kids to school, they did it. Today, wherever parents have the wherewithal to send their kids to private schooling, a substantial number do that too. What governments did was take over a system that was already in full swing, and deserves no credit for the prevalence of education. Quite the opposite - by directing schooling away from proper education and towards social adjustment for collective ends, which most people recognise (dimly or better) as unproductive, it has generated the lack of care about schooling that you seem to be picking up on.

I would go on to say that this underlying sentiment you have isn't even as prevalent as your assertion of a need to convince people implies it to be. Back in history, I recall how there had to be harsh laws to prevent the kids of slaves from being educated. Today, the same is seen in fundamentalist religious countries where parents and teachers knowingly risk being savagely murdered for educating girls. Here in the west, there is fanatical hatred among pro-public types of making it easier for parents to send kids to private schools of their choice, not because it would be open to only a few parents, but because it would be open to many parents, which would lead to a sizable proportion of the population of ordinary people then not being raised how the social adjusters want. The involvement of authorities in education is not, and never was, about ensuring good education but about indoctrination. You can't say "but I don't want to force" because as soon as you introduce authority superseding parental wishes it is inevitable that both force and indoctrination will develop.

Privatise education, get rid of the crap that makes it artificially expensive, and eliminate both compulsory attendance and government oversight of content, and you will find that the number of parents who would not send their kids to school is both very small and will decrease over time. There are no grounds for your fears.

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Thanks for the responses from everyone.

As such, why isn't the primary driver their interest? It is in their interest because they stand to directly benefit materially from educating themselves. Why are we so sure that the uneducated are sure to miss that point entirely? Some will, most won't. Your hypothetical of the uneducated begatting more uneducated is wholy fallacious.

I certainly see your point, that everyone raises their economic value by educating themselves. For devils advocate sake: Will a 5 or 6 year old child understand this and make the rational decision his parents don't make?

The first step is to end taxation. I take it you mean "The first step, if not actually ending taxation...".If that were the case, the government would impose some kind of state standards, so we don't need to put this in hypothetical terms.

That isn't what would happen. Ending taxation will not be the first step. What I am curious about is how these changes would be implemented starting from today.

There should of course be standards, but they are not the concern of the state. The first step, IMO, should be to specify particular goals, and find a way to objectively determine how close the student has come to the goal.

By standards I don't necessarily mean "your child must read at this level, or do math problems of this nature." A sort of enforced basic standard might be "This school should use English."

Lastly,

John McVey: Interesting post. What particular time period and/or countries are you speaking of? I assume you are speaking of 19th century America?

Thanks.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By standards I don't necessarily mean "your child must read at this level, or do math problems of this nature." A sort of enforced basic standard might be "This school should use English."
Then the concept of "enforced standards" would be completely indefensible. The language of instruction in a class should not be a matter of law; it is right and proper that The Waswahili League run a school where the language of instruction is Swahili, and whether they fail or flourish will depend on whether they can find customers (and instructors). Mimi, ninafikiri kwamba watashindwa kupata wanafunzi wakutosha, but it is their right to try. Nor should it even me a matter of law whether a school teaches history at all. The content of instruction should be completely at the discretion of the school, and parents would select this school versus that based on the actual content -- which would include more detailed specification of the kinds of math problems that would be taught.

Your question is ill-framed because you've started by saying "There are certain sacred cows that we can't address -- the main problems". I suggest going back to the very beginning and ask, "What needs to be changed in education?". The answer is, (1) the use of taxation as a means of funding and (2) the compulsory nature of education. You're saying, "Yeah, but let's not address these points, let's change something else". Why then should we change anything? What is the intended goal of the change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then the concept of "enforced standards" would be completely indefensible. The language of instruction in a class should not be a matter of law; it is right and proper that The Waswahili League run a school where the language of instruction is Swahili, and whether they fail or flourish will depend on whether they can find customers (and instructors). Mimi, ninafikiri kwamba watashindwa kupata wanafunzi wakutosha, but it is their right to try. Nor should it even me a matter of law whether a school teaches history at all. The content of instruction should be completely at the discretion of the school, and parents would select this school versus that based on the actual content -- which would include more detailed specification of the kinds of math problems that would be taught.

Absolutely agree with the argument of content. This should be a matter for each school to decide on. I suppose you are right, the language in use should be as well. And therefore on average Spanish immigrants will send their kids to Spanish speaking schools, Portuguese immigrants will send their kids to Portuguese speaking schools, French immigrants to French schools, etc. Now of course, I assume there would be a predominant language in which most business is conducted in, as there are not enough numerals on a telephone keypad to accomodate all languages when you dial a customer service number. So it would be in the kids best interest to learn this dominant language, but he will learn it either as some sort of elective in his school or as a second language when he enters the workforce and discovers it is of use to him. Correct me if I am wrong.

Your question is ill-framed because you've started by saying "There are certain sacred cows that we can't address -- the main problems". I suggest going back to the very beginning and ask, "What needs to be changed in education?". The answer is, (1) the use of taxation as a means of funding and (2) the compulsory nature of education. You're saying, "Yeah, but let's not address these points, let's change something else". Why then should we change anything? What is the intended goal of the change?

I certainly recognize that these are the main thoughts that run against a free schooling system. What I am trying to ask, and have thus far been at fault by not communicating clearly, is how can we work within the current underlying thought structures toward a relatively more free system? Or maybe that isn't possible because we are constrained by existing thought. I take it that what you are saying is that the change is only possible from the ground up? So that instead of addressing the particular problem of schooling we should be addressing the larger problem of improper philosophy?

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong.
Okay, stand corrected then. :P Not that I am arguing against language education turning out the way you say; however, neither can you assume that it would turn out the way you predict. One could argue that if one language is truly dominant that would end up being the primary medium of education, with different schools still teaching their own language too, as a second language. Given my experience with India sticking with English even after the British left, I think this is just as likely. If I had to guess, I'd predict a mix of both approaches, adopted by different families, based on what they think is important in life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And therefore on average Spanish immigrants will send their kids to Spanish speaking schools, Portuguese immigrants will send their kids to Portuguese speaking schools, French immigrants to French schools, etc.
The facts do not support that assumption. Children manage to learn the local language, whatever it is, with such ease that there is little need to run classes in the immigrant language for very long. Somali immigrants will therefore send their children to an English (ESL) class as long as it takes for the kids to learn sufficient English to survive in a straight English school -- not very long. Foreign language schools are really designed either to exploit the ethnic-heritage market (kids in the Swahili school aren't there because they only speak Swahili, there are there because they or their parents feel some affinity for Africa and Swahili) or because of an active interest in making the child bilingual (on the not totally disreputable theory that there is an advantage to speaking two languages). On average, Portuguese and Norwegian immigrants switch to English (in the US) and beget English monolinguals whose ancestors used to speak Portuguese or Norwegian, and do not on average try to retard the integration of their children into the new society that they moved to.
What I am trying to ask, and have thus far been at fault by not communicating clearly, is how can we work within the current underlying thought structures toward a relatively more free system?
Change the underlying thought structure. Challenge the notion that all good things must come from the government, to be paid for by taxations; challenge the notion that the government know what is "the greatest common good", that there even is such a thing, and that it is right for the government to impose that view by force. In other words, challenge taxes and compulsory education.
So that instead of addressing the particular problem of schooling we should be addressing the larger problem of improper philosophy?
Instead of addressing the particular problem of schooling, we should be addressing the larger problem of improper philosophy. Address the cause, not the particular symptom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Softwarenerd: Thanks, I gotcha.

The facts do not support that assumption. Children manage to learn the local language, whatever it is, with such ease that there is little need to run classes in the immigrant language for very long.

The children tend to learn the local language with ease because they are sent to public schools in which the main language is English. Without this compulsory aspect I suspect many immigrant parents will send their kids to schools of their native language (not for any good reason, but for the reason you stated, which is, some sort of affinity for their native language and culture and for what is "familiar." Observe how immigrants tend to form their own communities within particular neighborhoods) and kids would be less likely to "manage to learn the local language" until they grow a bit and realize it is in their best interest.

or because of an active interest in making the child bilingual (on the not totally disreputable theory that there is an advantage to speaking two languages).

Yes, from the brief knowledge I have on the subject, I think there is some truth to that theory. My wife is from Brazil and speaks Portuguese, and we have had discussions and read a few books on whether or not we will raise our children bilingually.

Instead of addressing the particular problem of schooling, we should be addressing the larger problem of improper philosophy. Address the cause, not the particular symptom.

Right. Thanks for the replies, they have been very helpful for me to try to comprehend more of how a free system would operate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without this compulsory aspect I suspect many immigrant parents will send their kids to schools of their native language ...

Immigrants, familiar first hand with the difficulties arising from not being able to communicate well, do care about their children learning a local language. People immigrate because they want a better life for themselves and their families and they will do what is necessary to make that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without this compulsory [of forcing the children of immigrants to attend schools where English is the primary language] aspect I suspect many immigrant parents will send their kids to schools of their native language (not for any good reason, but for the reason you stated, which is, some sort of affinity for their native language and culture and for what is "familiar." Observe how immigrants tend to form their own communities within particular neighborhoods) and kids would be less likely to "manage to learn the local language" until they grow a bit and realize it is in their best interest.

I disagree with this, although the above is too general to really argue over it. Growing up in a diverse area where many of my friends spoke a different language in their home (e.g., Taiwanese, Hindi, Bengali, Spanish, etc.), I do not perceive that most of these families would prefer to send their children to a school that did not primarily teach in English, even if a academically comparable alternative existed. Given that the majority of the global business community speaks English, I suspect that many parents will realize the great economic value in having their children speak English fluently.

There will of course be a nontrivial number of parents who will not see such value (probably in the lower income households) and will most likely choose a school that teaches in their foreign language, citing the desire to teach their child about their native culture as motivation. A prime example of this is how many families living in Native American nations prefer to send their children to their own schools that will teach Native American culture as opposed to a U.S. public school that will teach their children Calculus, Chemistry and Physics.

If the U.S. undergoes a significant expansion of a guest worker program and there are reforms to allow for freedom in education, then we can expect there to be a greater consumer demand for schools that teach in languages besides English, as many families might not have plans to become permanent residents. But, even then, it is their choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The children tend to learn the local language with ease because they are sent to public schools in which the main language is English. Without this compulsory aspect I suspect many immigrant parents will send their kids to schools of their native language (not for any good reason, but for the reason you stated, which is, some sort of affinity for their native language and culture and for what is "familiar." Observe how immigrants tend to form their own communities within particular neighborhoods) and kids would be less likely to "manage to learn the local language" until they grow a bit and realize it is in their best interest.
On the contrary, in my town which has about 40,000 recent Somali immigrants, the compulsory element was irrelevant -- the schools were totally incapable of providing language education. Step one was for the parents and their friends to seek out and create a way to teach their children English (which they did).

I have to say that this headlong rush to learning English on the part of immigrants is a professional problem for me. I need folks who still speak the Old Language fluently, but these pesky parents insist on getting their kids to talk the local language (English, here) so that they can have a better life, making them useless for my purposes. But then, my needs are not exactly a valid claim on the lives of these young whippersnappers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, in my town which has about 40,000 recent Somali immigrants, the compulsory element was irrelevant -- the schools were totally incapable of providing language education.

My experience has been slightly different. My wife knew a very small amount of English when she came here and states that the bulk of her language education was provided by special programs (ESOL, English for Speakers of Other Languages) at the public school she attended here. So I wouldn't go as far as to say the schools are "totally incapable" of providing this service, although that doesn't imply that they are the only way to give this service, nor that private schools wouldn't do a better job of it.

But it is not a critical point, because the compulsory element was not a major factor for her and therefore, as you stated, irrelevant. Similiar to what DarkWaters was saying, my wife's parents tried to send her to a part of the United States that is not known to have a large amount of Brazilian immigrants, and therefore she would have to assimilate into the culture and language quickly. So the reason she was able to learn the language quickly was because of the situation her parents chose to put her in, rather than any sort of situation she was forced into by a state power. Anyway, I suppose it would not have made a difference had the school been private rather than public, as her parents would have opted for a private school that provided programs similiar in nature to ESOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... how can we work within the current underlying thought structures toward a relatively more free system?
There have been a few small attempts to reduce government control of education. The two most common in the US are:

  • charter schools; and
  • vouchers

Charter schools do not change the financing. The government still finances the school; but, it does not manage the school from day to day. However, the entity paying the bills always has clout. For all practical purposes, the best one can get from a charter school system is a better-run government system. In that sense, it is similar to other ways of improving government-run schools. In a separate thread, the owner of a private school also pointed out that such a change can actually hurt nearby private schools, because parents -- thinking they're going to get something just like a private school -- might opt for the charter school. I suppose the same would be true of other improvements to government-run schools. If the schools improve, some parents would rather not spend the money on private schooling.

Vouchers have been the other method that has been tried in the U.S. Typically, the government gives vouchers to kids, and the kids can use those vouchers as if they were cash, to pay for private schooling. Usually, the voucher amount is less than the public-school average-per-child cost. Of course, if the government is paying, it still gets to set down rules. For instance, in a thread on the forum -- long time ago -- someone pointed to a school that was taking vouchers, but was preaching some really racist messages. Consider how people object to stem cell research using government funds, or abortions in government-funded hospitals. Similarly, when the government is paying private schools, via vouchers, it allows the government to write some rules. A voucher system can be a step on the way to privatization; or, it can end up giving the government a back-door into controlling private schools!

Rand suggested tax-credits. The idea here is that one could get an income-tax credit for money paid for education. Again, any such credit will come with government strings attached. However, it is really moot, because tax-credits have no chance of passing in the U.S. in a big way (there have been some tiny experiments). The reason they do not stand a chance is that they're something tax-payers could use and non-payers could not. As long as voters think that the government ought to be educating kids, they consider this type of scheme to be unfair -- unjust to the poor.

Voters have repeatedly turned down vouchers too, particularly in good school districts. If vouchers are aimed at poor districts, they have a better political chance of being voted in. In better districts there are a lot of parents who judge that they would not want to use the vouchers; and, they realize that it will cut the funding to their kids' schools. Meanwhile, charter schools do not have a great track record. If at all they deliver better results, those appear to be only marginally better. (They do offer parents a degree of choice though, within the government system.)

To chew on the importance of philosophy, consider proposing this change to the current system: parents will have to pay 10% of the cost of their kids' K-12 education, with the percentage rising each year. Would this be palatable to voters? If not, no other schemes will move toward the ideal. Every scheme will have to be "sold" to voters as something it was not. Every scheme would be sold as a means to make improvements within the government-run system?

When it comes to voting, I think one can support some of these measures, on a case by case basis. However, none of them is likely to lead to privatization. When one supports any of these measures, one would have to do so keeping in mind who is helped and who is sacrificed. As a voter, you would often be put in a situation where both choices are bad in principle, and your vote is about: will this government scheme help me and hurt my neighbor, or the other way around?

PS: Milton Freidman wrote and spoke a lot about schemes like vouchers, using "choice" as his fundamental principle. I'm not sure if the principle of "choice" ever got any traction.

Link to comment
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...