Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anarchy

Rate this topic


FieldMarshal
 Share

Recommended Posts

I honesty don't understand how you pro-war Objectivists think. When you bomb a country, you kill people. Would you be willing to go up to an Iranian military base and personally shoot a random soldier in the head? For doing nothing except standing there? How is this not aggression? Keep shooting people until they "submit" to a free market republic? The problem is war and nationalism is that ordinary people fight and die for ideas and nations that are not their own.

Before I met ARI, purely from reading Rand, I thought Objectivism was simply about forming your own, voluntary society. Yet you hawks want to nuke millions of innocent people. Terrorism is an individual crime, and only the people who actually initiated violence should be punished. Yet you want to turn 9/11 into some rallying cry against the entire middle east.

If you think two million Iranians should die because Iran won't budge with its nuclear energy policy, you are a sick animal. You can't use some mathematical formula for determining how practical an invasion is based on money vs. people killed. Military intervention is like socialist economic planning, you can't achieve your desired results because your policy can never adapt to the complexity of the market. Trying to spread freedom by killing people is an inherent contradiction.

As an anarchocapitalist, I've always toiled over the "in anarchy, warlords will take over" question. But now I realize that this is exactly what happens in international relations. If one country feels another is threatening, bomb it. Tax the people against their will to pay for it. Peikoffian Objectivists miss one key insight over the nature of collectivism: nationalism itself is collectivism. It taxes people for causes they don't want. It kills people who fight for the wrong cause, yet don't really deserve to die. People's reason is subjugated to national interest.

Unless there is no government, there is no way to insure no innocent people will die in war. Unless power is decentralized, we will continue to have the collective blame for what our country does, and all other nations theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But now I realize that this is exactly what happens in international relations. If one country feels another is threatening, bomb it.

If that were true, democracies would be bombing each other left and right. And yet, that never happened, not even once.

So how did you realize that about international relations? Did it come to you in a dream?

Unless there is no government, there is no way to insure no innocent people will die in war.

There are plenty of places in the world, both today and in history, without government. Innocent people are being killed there in far greater numbers than anywhere else.

And you know that, which is why you're not on a one way plane trip to the Congo.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that were true, democracies would be bombing each other left and right. And yet, that never happened, not even once.

So how did you realize that about international relations? Did it come to you in a dream?

There are plenty of places in the world, both today and in history, without government. Innocent people are being killed there in far greater numbers than anywhere else.

And you know that, which is why you're not on a one way plane trip to the Congo.

1. Japan was a democracy during world war, hamas was democratically elected. Many democratic countries have been ineffective and usurped by dictatorships (Republic of China 1911-49, Weimar Germany, etc).

2. Congo does have a transitional government. Civil war is not anarchy, but polystatism.

If you truly believe rights are inherent and "unalienable", you don't need government. People simply have rights. The distinction between a private enforcement agency and a government is that you cannot commit a crime "against society", only against other people or their property. In a government, who will protect us from the government's aggression? What prevents a policeman from brutalizing or robbing a common person? And if there is something that prevents a policeman from doing so, why can't the same mechanism be used in free-market defense production? In a pure free market, enforcement will be forced to respect each other's life and property because of retribution. Basically this is an eternal regression "Who created God" issue. If governments enforce objective standards, what will make sure the government will not be corrupt? We cannot construct a perfect system of government that will solve all problems, so why not let the people via the free market choose?

Back to the topic of privately funding wars against Iran, I would like to note that originally, experts thought the Iraq war would cost only $50 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_B._Lindsey#The_Iraq_controversy), when it is actually $500 billion plus several trillion worth of unquantifiable economic damage. Thinking that all the businessman and hedge fund managers would pay for a war in Iran that would cost and still expect to make a profit is hogwash. Go start a cookie sale for bombing Iran. You can't be a hawk with being pro-tax. And taxation is clearly against the non-aggression principle. Warmongering Objectivists only appear to defend individual rights and rationality by hawking against a broad, vague entity like "Islamic totalitarianism" (That label could actually apply to every single middle eastern country). My opinion is that Objectivism lies in individual interests, not national interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the topic of privately funding wars against Iran, I would like to note that originally, experts thought the Iraq war would cost only $50 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_B._Lindsey#The_Iraq_controversy), when it is actually $500 billion plus several trillion worth of unquantifiable economic damage.
No Objectivist advocates or would advocate conducting a war like that. There is no question that this altruistic nation-building self-immolation that we have been engaged in in Iraq is fully contrary to Objectivist principles. The military elimination of the threat is relatively cheap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you truly believe rights are inherent and "unalienable", you don't need government. People simply have rights.

Inalienable. Rights can be violated and need defending. Inalienable does not mean invincible or inviolable.

The distinction between a private enforcement agency and a government is that you cannot commit a crime "against society", only against other people or their property.

The "crime against society" rationale is not the correct derivation for the need of a government. The correct derivation is a delegation of the right of self defense.

In a government, who will protect us from the government's aggression? What prevents a policeman from brutalizing or robbing a common person? And if there is something that prevents a policeman from doing so, why can't the same mechanism be used in free-market defense production?

Nothing but the right of self defense, the same thing that protects you against violent criminals. Policemen almost always show up after the fact and the justice system can only prevent repeat crimes by the same people while they are jailed.

Self defense is an inefficient response to a coordinated assault by a criminal gang or invading army.

In a pure free market, enforcement will be forced to respect each other's life and property because of retribution. Basically this is an eternal regression "Who created God" issue.

Except the winner of this debate gets to be God when the fighting is over, which is temptation enough to start the fight for the irrational, or the foolhardy, or the ambitious, or the ruthless.

If governments enforce objective standards, what will make sure the government will not be corrupt? We cannot construct a perfect system of government that will solve all problems, so why not let the people via the free market choose?

Are you saying objective standards cause corruption? How does that happen? It is as likely that the entire government become corrupt as the entire population. In principle no system can protect you if all your neighbors are corrupt. Anarchy won't protect you if even one of your neighbors is corrupt.

The people will freely choose to establish a government. We have historical precedent here in the American federation days before the present constitution was ratified.

Back to the topic of privately funding wars against Iran, I would like to note that originally, experts thought the Iraq war would cost only $50 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_B._Lindsey#The_Iraq_controversy), when it is actually $500 billion plus several trillion worth of unquantifiable economic damage. Thinking that all the businessman and hedge fund managers would pay for a war in Iran that would cost and still expect to make a profit is hogwash. Go start a cookie sale for bombing Iran. You can't be a hawk with being pro-tax. And taxation is clearly against the non-aggression principle. Warmongering Objectivists only appear to defend individual rights and rationality by hawking against a broad, vague entity like "Islamic totalitarianism" (That label could actually apply to every single middle eastern country). My opinion is that Objectivism lies in individual interests, not national interests.

One advocates war to avoid impending losses, not to make a profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inalienable. Rights can be violated and need defending. Inalienable does not mean invincible or inviolable.

The "crime against society" rationale is not the correct derivation for the need of a government. The correct derivation is a delegation of the right of self defense.

Nothing but the right of self defense, the same thing that protects you against violent criminals. Policemen almost always show up after the fact and the justice system can only prevent repeat crimes by the same people while they are jailed.

Self defense is an inefficient response to a coordinated assault by a criminal gang or invading army.

Except the winner of this debate gets to be God when the fighting is over, which is temptation enough to start the fight for the irrational, or the foolhardy, or the ambitious, or the ruthless.

Are you saying objective standards cause corruption? How does that happen? It is as likely that the entire government become corrupt as the entire population. In principle no system can protect you if all your neighbors are corrupt. Anarchy won't protect you if even one of your neighbors is corrupt.

The people will freely choose to establish a government. We have historical precedent here in the American federation days before the present constitution was ratified.

One advocates war to avoid impending losses, not to make a profit

Government cannot establish complete order. Look at the Bloods/Crips in LA or the Zetas/Sinaloa drug cartels in Mexico. No matter how much time and money the gov't pours in, the gangs get worse. The problem with a Constitution-style minarchy is if you grant people "right to a fair trial", "due process of law", and "protection from unreasonable searches and seizures" criminals can get away with crimes easily. If you deny people the right from being searched and seized, you end up with a police state and potential corruption. In anarchy, people will form their own organizations to protect themselves from criminals and can abandon these organizations if they are not doing a good job. The defense market is just like the insurance market: the point is to keep you safe. Everyone has a pretty clear idea of what is legal and not legal: killing is wrong, rape is wrong, etc., but the tenuous process of crime investigation and bringing suspects to trial requires effficient, specialized institutions (such as private investigation companies and arbitrators seen today).

If you defend government enforced police, you must defend government enforced taxation. If you believe government is more efficient in supplying defense than the free market, then why can't the FDA supply medicine safely by establishing "objective" health safety standards? The problem with government its inability to account for unintended consequences: if a business fails, it loses all its money, if a government fails, it uses force to remain in power. I do not see why military services on an economic level are somehow more public of a good than say roads or insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how much time and money the gov't pours in, the gangs get worse. The problem with a Constitution-style minarchy is if you grant people "right to a fair trial", "due process of law", and "protection from unreasonable searches and seizures" criminals can get away with crimes easily.

None of that is true. Crime levels are constantly dropping, so "the gangs get worse" is a meaningless statement.

And what criminals are getting away with crimes easily? What is this, a bad 80's movie?

Don't you see a pattern here, with the sentence upon which your entire argument is built (and which is your only attempt to establish a connection to reality) being a false claim in every single post you make?

If you defend government enforced police, you must defend government enforced taxation. If you believe government is more efficient in supplying defense than the free market, then why can't the FDA supply medicine safely by establishing "objective" health safety standards?

So, even though you are a "former Objectivist", you are aware of no difference between what the Police and what a pharmaceutical company (or any other business venture) does?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of that is true. Crime levels are constantly dropping, so "the gangs get worse" is a meaningless statement.

And what criminals are getting away with crimes easily? What is this, a bad 80's movie?

Don't you see a pattern here, with the sentence upon which your entire argument is built (and which is your only attempt to establish a connection to reality) being a false claim in every single post you make?

So, even though you are a "former Objectivist", you are aware of no difference between what the Police and what a pharmaceutical company (or any other business venture) does?

"Constantly dropping"? Crime in Mexico is exploding because of drug cartels. If you were a police chief, can you come up with a 5 year plan to stop all criminals? No. Also, here in the U.S, probably only half of all murders and rapists and less than 20% of all thieves and burglars are caught (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime3.pdf). So I think its fundamentally wrong to assume that government action is the way to reduce crime.

Regardless of how much crime actually exists, I am trying to argue about why free market defense services do better than government. Market anarchy is where all people choose to pay different defense agencies for protection. Government is where defense is only provided by the government. Free market defense agencies can be corrupt, but so can government. In a pure free market, the people act as a "check" toward defense agencies by not boycotting them if they are ineffective. In government, nobody checks the police's power if they are using their money inefficiently or corrupting their power: I cannot choose a different police agency if my own is doing a bad job at catching or trying criminals. In government, I simply pay for this inefficient service using my tax money whether I like it or not.

If you think free market defense leads to gang warfare, you also must show why a monopolist government can prevent it. Theoretically, a free market defense agency can extort me out of my money. Theoretically, so can government. Any argument against free market defense is also an argument against government-supplied defense, so free market defense can do no worse. I do not see any "false claim" I making. Its only that you assume that there is no objective law in anarchy, when in reality the law is clear: don't commit an act against another person or his property, and if you do, you will need to compensate the victim and be punished to the same extent you wronged the victim.

Again, I have yet to hear a clear, definite response from war hawk objectivists to how you can bomb Iran without using taxation. If you want to start a bomb Iran donation fund, fine. But if you war hawk Objectivists become president and take over congress, don't use any of my extorted tax money to kill people. Use your own. There is no way you can fund a war without using taxation. War and violence is a tool of the state, and taxation is its life blood

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Constantly dropping"?

Yes. If you don't cherry pick to fit your argument, but instead look at the total number of violent offenses/year, in a stable country such as the US, crime rates are indeed consantly dropping:

Ncsucr2.gif

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...e-doing-it.html

Excerpts from the article I posted:

The US crime rate, instead of doubling during the past 20 years, has halved. Yes, you read that correctly: the rate at which crimes are committed in America is now one half of the rate 20 years ago. Indeed, it is at its lowest level since 1973.

In 1973, 44 million crimes were reported by their victims to the police in America. By 2001, only 24.2 million were recorded.

This method of counting crime, dependent on the victim reporting it, includes rape, robbery, assault, burglary and theft of all kinds.

It does not include murders - which the victim obviously cannot report. But the US murder rate has also diminished dramatically. In 1973, there were 9.5 murders for every 100,000 Americans. In 2001, the figure was 5.5.

The Americans have shown that, in fact, it is possible to cut the crime rate dramatically. How have they done it? What is the secret? Most of America's fall in crime has happened in the past seven years.

In 1994, for every 1,000 Americans aged 12 or older, 52 were victims of crime. Last year, that figure was down to 25 in every 1,000.

The fall coincides with a large increase in the number of police in most big cities, and the adoption of much harsher sentences for convicted criminals. America has embarked on a colossal prison-building programme in the past decade. The result of longer sentences and less parole and probation is that those prisons are now all full.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that prison works: putting more people behind bars has caused America's crime rate to drop.

This is how we try to argue on this forum. With facts and logic.

Here you are, in sharp contrast to the above, arguing with nonsensical edicts (if it's in bold text, it must be true):

There is no way you can fund a war without using taxation.

There are many ways to fund a war without taxation: you can simply live off of things you steal or blackmail from the enemy (Attila the Hun brought the Western Roman Empire to its knees doing that), you can fund a war using private money (there are small wars fought in Africa to this day where some of the sides are funded by private companies defending their properties), and finally, you can fund a war unsing voluntary contributions, or selling war bonds (like the US gov. did in WW2).

Here's another senseless edict of yours:

War and violence is a tool of the state, and taxation is its life blood.

War is not a just a tool of the state, there are countless examples of warlords and rebel or terrorist groups fighting wars.

Your second edict (violence is a tool of the state) I of course can prove wrong by walking up to you and smacking you over the head. That's violence, and I'm not a state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honesty don't understand how you pro-war Objectivists think. When you bomb a country, you kill people. Would you be willing to go up to an Iranian military base and personally shoot a random soldier in the head? For doing nothing except standing there? How is this not aggression? Keep shooting people until they "submit" to a free market republic? The problem is war and nationalism is that ordinary people fight and die for ideas and nations that are not their own.

Before I met ARI, purely from reading Rand, I thought Objectivism was simply about forming your own, voluntary society. Yet you hawks want to nuke millions of innocent people. Terrorism is an individual crime, and only the people who actually initiated violence should be punished. Yet you want to turn 9/11 into some rallying cry against the entire middle east.

Though I think you're exaggerating the ARI position, it's noteworthy that it's not just ARI that disagrees with you. It's also Ayn Rand:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties

And there are *philosophical reasons* for this position. You should think about them:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...cle&id=6418

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honesty don't understand how you pro-war Objectivists think. When you bomb a country, you kill people. Would you be willing to go up to an Iranian military base and personally shoot a random soldier in the head? For doing nothing except standing there? How is this not aggression? Keep shooting people until they "submit" to a free market republic? The problem is war and nationalism is that ordinary people fight and die for ideas and nations that are not their own.

Before I met ARI, purely from reading Rand, I thought Objectivism was simply about forming your own, voluntary society. Yet you hawks want to nuke millions of innocent people. Terrorism is an individual crime, and only the people who actually initiated violence should be punished. Yet you want to turn 9/11 into some rallying cry against the entire middle east.

If you think two million Iranians should die because Iran won't budge with its nuclear energy policy, you are a sick animal. You can't use some mathematical formula for determining how practical an invasion is based on money vs. people killed. Military intervention is like socialist economic planning, you can't achieve your desired results because your policy can never adapt to the complexity of the market. Trying to spread freedom by killing people is an inherent contradiction.

As an anarchocapitalist, I've always toiled over the "in anarchy, warlords will take over" question. But now I realize that this is exactly what happens in international relations. If one country feels another is threatening, bomb it. Tax the people against their will to pay for it. Peikoffian Objectivists miss one key insight over the nature of collectivism: nationalism itself is collectivism. It taxes people for causes they don't want. It kills people who fight for the wrong cause, yet don't really deserve to die. People's reason is subjugated to national interest.

Unless there is no government, there is no way to insure no innocent people will die in war. Unless power is decentralized, we will continue to have the collective blame for what our country does, and all other nations theirs.

Was your only reason for coming here to attack and insult Objectivists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Yes. If you don't cherry pick to fit your argument, but instead look at the total number of violent offenses/year, in a stable country such as the US, crime rates are indeed consantly dropping:

Ncsucr2.gif

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...e-doing-it.html

Excerpts from the article I posted:

This is how we try to argue on this forum. With facts and logic.

Here you are, in sharp contrast to the above, arguing with nonsensical edicts (if it's in bold text, it must be true):

There are many ways to fund a war without taxation: you can simply live off of things you steal or blackmail from the enemy (Attila the Hun brought the Western Roman Empire to its knees doing that), you can fund a war using private money (there are small wars fought in Africa to this day where some of the sides are funded by private companies defending their properties), and finally, you can fund a war unsing voluntary contributions, or selling war bonds (like the US gov. did in WW2).

Here's another senseless edict of yours:

War is not a just a tool of the state, there are countless examples of warlords and rebel or terrorist groups fighting wars.

Your second edict (violence is a tool of the state) I of course can prove wrong by walking up to you and smacking you over the head. That's violence, and I'm not a state.

-You cherry picked evidence too, your evidence is only a 10 year abberration, and crime since 2003 has gone slightly up. Constantly dropping means that the rate will go down continuously, presumably until it reaches near zero, as a RESULT of stable government. Stable government doesn't continuously reduce crime. Do you honestly think crime will be cut in half again over the next 20 years ONLY because we have "stable" government? This is global warming graph logic.

-Funding a war through stealing loot could theoretically fund a war b/c profit is a motive, but it is simply tantamount to large-scale theft. In a completely free society, war would be costly and aggressors risk alienating other people. Besides looting, there is no way to profit from a war, so war bond investors take impractical risks (by the way, the WW2 war bonds were paid off by tax dollars anyway). While conflict always occurs, I doubt any private investors can raise enough money to bomb Iran and risk retribution at the same time.

-Terrorists groups become states themselves when they win. Wikipedia describes it pretty well: "War is reciprocated armed conflict between political units aimed at a desired political end-state." Also, I said "violence is a tool of the state", not "violence is only a tool of the state", so don't misinterpret my quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-You cherry picked evidence too, your evidence is only a 10 year abberration, and crime since 2003 has gone slightly up.

I picked the 30 year period from '73 to 2003, in the most stable country in the World, counting all violent crimes. That's the widest statistic I could find, it's 30 years not 10, and it corresponds with a period in which US Law started raising penalties for violent crimes. And it shows a dramatic, over 50% drop in overall crime, over three decades.

You're welcome to come up with an even wider study which confirms your version of reality. You won't though, because overall crime is dropping in the long term, and has been for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killing civilians without any strategic benefit serves no purpose. But if we need to destroy something, any incidental civilian deaths (not murders) are the responsibility of the initiators of force.

Edited by L-C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Killing civilians without any strategic benefit serves no purpose. But if we need to destroy something, any incidental civilian deaths (not murders) are the responsibility of the initiators of force.

That is the illusion though! Most civilian deaths do serve a purpose to a greater social agenda.

Operations Ajax and Gladio required the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians. The operations were used to overthrow the much beloved democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq, PM of Iran.

Killing civilians can win you political favor. Just look at Hitler.

Edited by Murdakahn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the illusion though! Most civilian deaths do serve a purpose to a greater social agenda.

Operations Ajax and Gladio required the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians. The operations were used to overthrow the much beloved democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq, PM of Iran.

Killing civilians can win you political favor. Just look at Hitler.

Not all sarcasm is funny. You need some imagination to be a little clever, you can't just say the opposite of what you think and get a laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The operations were used to overthrow the much beloved democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq, PM of Iran.
Although in fact he was not democratically elected. He was selected by miniscule proportion of the Iranian population; only a few score individuals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all sarcasm is funny. You need some imagination to be a little clever, you can't just say the opposite of what you think and get a laugh.

Maybe you took what I said out of context. Maybe I meant what I wrote out of a sense of irony rather than sarcasm. I am sorry but I am not in the habit of doing what happens to please you. If you have anything more constructive to contribute Id be happy to reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although in fact he was not democratically elected. He was selected by miniscule proportion of the Iranian population; only a few score individuals.

Thanks for the correction. Never the less it should be noted he was very popular and yet he was elected then overthrown in the coup. The heavily western supported fundamentalist Islamic shahs were then put into power.

Sadam and Noriega were both established in similar ways as well, and these actions were largely funded by american taxpayer money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The heavily western supported fundamentalist Islamic shahs were then put into power.
Well, all I can say is that for thousands of years it has sucked to have to deal with the Iranian government, and at this point I am willing to bet that it will suck seriously for another 4 years. There is a rational minority in Iran, but the majority is basically irrational. It was at least apparently short-sighted to support Reza Pahlavi who BTW was Shah years before Mossadeq became PM. I dispute your implication that Pahlavi was "fundamentalist" and you can't use a plural to refer to a single person. Nevertheless, it was right to support a more rational choice, even though it was not the ideal (mythical) choice. The real take-home point is that Iran is an existence-proof of the stupidity of democracy a.k.a. mob rule in a predominantly irrational society. However: it is better to be in a predominantly irrational society than to be in a fundamentally irrational society. Maybe in the next 20 years they can make the transition to a mere "mostly irrational society", and ultimately they can break free.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks David for your informative replies. Linguistically and intellectually you maybe a little out of my league. However that is why I am here to debate and learn from people such as yourself. My education consists of barely completing HS so i apologize in advance for poor grammar.

On a more relevant note, It seems you know a great deal about Iran, would you mind sharing your sources Id really like to learn more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FieldMarshal - Perhaps it is best spoken by the Dark Knight himself - "If you're going to point a gun, point it at the people responsible."

If a war is indeed necessary, there is no sense in murdering innocents. If the hateful son-of-a-bitches (pardon my language, but they deserve it) Ahmadinejad or bin Laden wish to kill us, only them and the others who also wish to kill us should be punished.

As an example- if a man attempts to blow up a marketplace, (hope such a thing never happens), his neighbors, who do not share his hatred, should not share punishment.

Just my views and some words of wisdom from the Caped Crusader. B)

On the topic of anarchy - since there will always be violence and theft, governments and rules are necessary to prevent as much harm as possible, and to provide people with differing views a way to make descisions.

We can never eradicate ourselves of evil, so we, the people, deem government and a set of rules as necessary to constantly fight it, protect us, and keep evil at bay.

Imagine what damage the Unabomer could have achieved with no force able to stop him. Anarchy = Joker.

DavidOdden - Only when the results of the election become known will we see what the people of Iran desire most - peace and progress or hatred and denial. I hope for the former.

Edited by Peripeteia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FieldMarshal - Perhaps it is best spoken by the Dark Knight himself - "If you're going to point a gun, point it at the people responsible."

If a war is indeed necessary, there is no sense in murdering innocents. If the hateful son-of-a-bitches (pardon my language, but they deserve it) Ahmadinejad or bin Laden wish to kill us, only them and the others who also wish to kill us should be punished.

And yet, there they are, still unpunished. Go ahead, punish them already, back up your words with action, or stop moralizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...