Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Food Stamps?

Rate this topic


Schtank

Recommended Posts

Ahhh, I see. So, if we just repent we can commit any sin that's convenient?

I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice anything. I'm trying to determine what principle underlies the belief that it's okay to accept government assistance.

Ahhh, I see, then I suppose you don't want us to drive on govt roads, use govt schools, eat corn, use ethanol gas, accept tax refunds, use the home mortgage credit, get a mortgage, use paper money to trade with, buy electricity, buy cable TV, or really do any of the things in which the govt has its tentacles today? And you say you are not calling for sacrifice.

The principle is: live for yourself, don't sacrifice, advocate for the separation of economy and state and the end of the welfare state. If you happen to live in a welfare state where the govt is bleeding you dry, then accept your blood back when the govt offers it, don't sacrifice yourself. Especially don't sacrifice yourself to the lowest scum in society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To whom are you referring?

The people who actually condone the welfare state: socialists, communists, collectivists.

Not the ones who explicitly condemn the welfare state and would be happy to see it go but who, nonetheless, must live non-sacrificially while it does exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh, I see, then I suppose you don't want us to drive on govt roads, use govt schools, eat corn, use ethanol gas, accept tax refunds, use the home mortgage credit, get a mortgage, use paper money to trade with, buy electricity, buy cable TV, or really do any of the things in which the govt has its tentacles today? And you say you are not calling for sacrifice.

The principle is: live for yourself, don't sacrifice, advocate for the separation of economy and state and the end of the welfare state. If you happen to live in a welfare state where the govt is bleeding you dry, then accept your blood back when the govt offers it, don't sacrifice yourself. Especially don't sacrifice yourself to the lowest scum in society.

No, I just want you to talk a good game and live your principles when it's practical and convenient.

How one can consider living their principles to be sacrificial is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How one can consider living their principles to be sacrificial is beyond me.

Following principles is only sacrificial if they are improperly formed, or being improperly applied to the situation at hand. I believe this whole debate centers around whether the proper application of Objectivist principles to this situation necessitate refusing food stamps or not. It is not simply a given that O'ist principles say you must, to which your opponents respond by being pragmatic. Both sides are defending the application of a principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me this kind of rationalization works for just about anything. "I deserve welfare because I have children, and I wouldn't have children if sex didn't feel so good. It's not my fault." "I deserve unemployment insurance because I lost my job, and I wouldn't have lost my job if people didn't want iPods instead of vinyl records. It's not my fault." "I deserve health insurance because I'm sick, and I wouldn't be sick if the government would outlaw saturated fats. It's not my fault."

I know you said you weren't trying to pick on me, but I'm still offended that you'd dare compare me to that type of person. Some irrational moronic hedonist who acts on whim and then doesn't accept the blame when the blame is his.

No, I just want you to talk a good game and live your principles when it's practical and convenient.

How one can consider living their principles to be sacrificial is beyond me.

You're upholding Objectivist principles without regarding context. You must think Objectivist principles are just rules and regulations that you must abide by. Why are you upholding these principles? Because Rand said so, or because you understand how they selfishly benefit you? What you're advocating here is that we sacrifice ourselves. If you're willing to starve to uphold your principles, then you're doing something wrong. Something besides your life is the standard of value here, and something besides the individual's life is the context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to add something else. If you pay for a good or service, you should get what you paid for, correct? These services that the government is offering us are evil because we are being forced to pay for them, but we are still paying for them. Should we not get what we pay for?

I don't want to benefit from a system that infringes upon other peoples' rights. But my rights are being violated too. My money is being forcefully taken too, and I should be able to get what I pay for without feeling guilty about it.

I want it to be that everything I get is paid for by me willingly. I'm perfectly fine with buying my food voluntarily. I'm perfectly fine with paying a toll to drive on the roads if they were to be privatized. Hell, I would pay a toll to walk on the sidewalk if the sidewalks were privatized instead of public property. But right now we're being given these things and being forced to pay for them, so all we can do now is fight to privatize them while getting what we involuntarily pay for.

Would you have us refuse to get what we involuntarily pay for? How is that rationally selfish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How one can consider living their principles to be sacrificial is beyond me.

OK, so tell us, which Objectivist principle am I advocating breaking?

Here, I'll help you out, none of these are Objectivist principles:

- Sacrifice yourself to the state, the people, the Volk

- Go hungry so that the socialists can eat

- From each according to their ability, to each according to their need

- The collectivists are your masters, you are their slave

- Sacrifice yourself to those in greater need

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following principles is only sacrificial if they are improperly formed, or being improperly applied to the situation at hand.

An important qualification. Thank you, Dante.

I know you said you weren't trying to pick on me, but I'm still offended that you'd dare compare me to that type of person.

Then how is your excuse/justification/rationalization (is there some other word I should use?) different from theirs?

Did you choose the level of education which would make you qualified for your current occupation? Did you choose your current occupation? Did you pursue whatever qualifications would take you to your current level of employment? Did you choose to trade with your current employer? In other words, are you the sole individual who has made all the decisions leading up to being an employee who gets his hours reduced to the point where he can no longer afford to buy food?

You must think Objectivist principles are just rules and regulations that you must abide by.

What would make you believe that?

Why are you upholding these principles?

Because they logically follow from the type of organism I am, I like being the organism I am, and wish to continue being the organism I am.

If you're willing to starve to uphold your principles, then you're doing something wrong.

I see. So, if I'm homeless and starving, then it's okay for me to steal? It's okay for me to get the government to steal for me? If that is the case, then how is Objectivist ethics any different from the most repellent ethical system imaginable?

Should we not get what we pay for?

It would be nice, but when one side has all the guns it doesn't always work out that way. If we don't get what we pay for, does that give us ethical freedom to take it from someone else? In other words, if I stole Marc's property, and he couldn't get it (or something else of comparable value) back from me, would it be moral for him to steal it from you?

I don't want to benefit from a system that infringes upon other peoples' rights. But my rights are being violated too. My money is being forcefully taken too, and I should be able to get what I pay for without feeling guilty about it.

Please, please, please - someone explain to me how this is not blatant rationalization.

OK, so tell us, which Objectivist principle am I advocating breaking?

At least three I can think of off the top of my head:

1. "Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others." - Ayn Rand

2. "Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality—to think, to work and to keep the results—which means: the right of property." (Ayn Rand) Therefore, all men should be allowed to do what they wish with their own property as long as he does not abridge the rights of others.

3. "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." - Ayn Rand

Here, I'll help you out, none of these are Objectivist principles:

What about my posts either explicitly, or implicitly led you to believe I needed the list you provided here?

Edited by JeffS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, please, please - someone explain to me how this is not blatant rationalization.

Here is the quote from Rand that offers the explanation you seek. This argument may be of no use to you if you think that the supporters of the system of robbing others are equally as innocent as the victims themselves, versus being a part of the "robber". It also won't help if you continue to acknowledge and then ignore that money is being stolen FROM YOU (generic you) and not just EVERYONE ELSE, like the money taken from you just vanished and has not become a part of the very system you seek to recover it from.

A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice.

- “The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist, June 1966, 11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between theft and taking advantage of a service you already pay for.

Yes, I'm a volitional being. I make choices, including what job to pursue, etc. So what? How does being volitional render me undeserving of getting back what was taken from me when I happen to need it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the quote from Rand that offers the explanation you seek.

Thanks for the quote. I've read it before, and it still ignores the fact that, currently, in order to provide the benefits of today the government must take property from someone else today. Do you disagree with this part of my argument? Do you believe the government could provide benefits today to all those who have paid taxes in the past up to the amount that has been taken from them?

If the situation were different, if the government were not operating at a deficit and did not have debt, then I would agree whole-heartedly.

If I paid taxes in 2005, then in 2010 required social benefits, I would have no moral qualm against taking those benefits AS LONG AS the government did not have to take someone else's property in order to provide me with those benefits. Just because a crime was committed in 2005, there's no justification for being party to a crime in 2010. It's not like the government took my money in 2005, set it aside and said, "Hey, if you ever need this, you can have it." No. The government took my money in 2005 and spent it. Now, in 2010, in order for me to get any assistance at all the government will have to go to someone else and take their property. Is that moral? Can I morally hold myself above the crime by saying, "Well, I got robbed in 2005 so it's only proper that someone else get robbed today."

Now, if I paid taxes in 2010, but still needed assistance, then several different issues would need to be put into the context. Am I living within my means, can I find ways to economize so that I don't need assistance? How much have I paid in taxes this year? How does that amount compare to how much I would have paid had I voluntarily paid for the proper functions of government? More than likely, this would stop the analysis since it's highly unlikely that I would have had nearly as much money taken in taxes as I would have voluntarily paid given the fact that I make so little income that I need assistance. But if the analysis does continue, I would have to compare the amount I have paid in taxes to how much I need in assistance.

Amaroq, I believe this also addresses your post. Let me know if it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The government took my money in 2005 and spent it. Now, in 2010, in order for me to get any assistance at all the government will have to go to someone else and take their property.

That's not true though, the context here is food stamps. By going on food stamps, as far as I know, that doesn't then mean the government is confiscating more wealth, it means that already confiscated wealth is being given back. Unemployment payment would not be an equivalent example, because in that case more money is taken from the company that you used to work at. The issue here isn't about calculating precisely how much of your money goes towards legitimate functions of government, but the fact that your rights were violated and you deserve justice. The only people who deserve justice in regard to government assistance programs are those who explicitly condemn wealth confiscation. Going on food stamps may potentially encourage the government to expand said program, but that's a different line of thought and not what you are arguing.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you disagree with this part of my argument?

Absolutely because it continues to ignore that it was my stolen money yesterday that IS the program today. I do not agree that my money simply vanishes when taken by the government as though it never existed. I absolutely disagree that with it because it continues to ignore that not all the money in the system is being stolen. The "accomplices", the ones supporting the system that also pay taxes are not having their money stolen any more than the accomplice to the robber who buys the gun to help in the robbery or who drives the getaway car that allows the robber to escape. The men who willingly support the system are the accomplices that are providing not only material support WILLINGLY with their taxes, they are giving the system moral support by voting into office and law those people and those law which allow the robber to keep going. I disagree that reclaiming the money that was stolen from me, that is now part of the system, is tantamount to participating in the future robberies by the government.

The distinction that does not seem to be making the transition is the difference between the victim (who "willingly" gives up his money because of the threat of force) and the accomplice (who willingly donates his money and his moral support to keep the robber in business). They are two different types of "willing" involved. The later are not being stolen from, they are supporting the robber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. "Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others." - Ayn Rand

2. "Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality—to think, to work and to keep the results—which means: the right of property." (Ayn Rand) Therefore, all men should be allowed to do what they wish with their own property as long as he does not abridge the rights of others.

3. "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." - Ayn Rand

Yes, so knowing that the government is initiating force against us, why will you not let us retaliate?

And why do you not want us to keep our property? Is it us who are violating rights or is it the government?

And why do you want us to sacrifice ourselves to the scum who promote the welfare state?

What about my posts either explicitly, or implicitly led you to believe I needed the list you provided here?

Because the things in that list are exactly what you are asking us to do.

- It is a fact that the welfare state exists

- all of us are forced to contribute to it

- the socialists collect from it

- you want us not to collect from it, which would be a sacrifice, you want us to sacrifice to the socialists

And this is justice to you?

Since this is the principle you espouse then I would like to know if we should refuse to drive on govt. roads and use govt. schools and do the rest of the things on my previous list? This is not rhetorical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true though, the context here is food stamps. By going on food stamps, as far as I know, that doesn't then mean the government is confiscating more wealth, it means that already confiscated wealth is being given back.

Absolutely because it continues to ignore that it was my stolen money yesterday that IS the program today. I do not agree that my money simply vanishes when taken by the government as though it never existed.

Then we are dealing with different understandings of reality and will, therefore, never agree. I don't know what evidence would prove to you that the government is operating at a deficit - it spends more money than it takes in. I don't know what evidence would prove to you that the government has debt - it has spent more money than it has taken in for an extended period of time.

If I spend more money than I take in, then I have to do something to rectify that - I'll have to take out a loan. That puts me in debt. I can't do that for an extended period of time; eventually, no one will want to lend to me and the people I borrowed money from are going to want their money back. In order to repay that debt, and/or maintain a higher level of spending, I really only have one option: earn more money. The government does not have this option. The only option the government has is to get money from people who have earned it; either voluntarily, through taking it by force, or by printing more money (inflation).

The government is operating at a deficit and carries debt. Its only option in getting more money to maintain its level of spending and to pay off that debt is to get more money from others. Either you recognize this, or you do not. I really find it difficult to believe you don't recognize it. Which leaves that you recognize it and are rationalizing. Your argument seems to be, "Yes, money was stolen from me, but others gave it willingly. It is their money that is used to maintain the higher level of spending, not mine. It is their money that is used to pay the debt, not mine. Yes, the government will have to get more money to pay for my benefits, but it will get that money from people who willingly give it to them. It won't have to steal it from anyone to pay for my benefits."

The problem with this argument is that it ignores reality. The government is operating at a deficit and maintains debt. All the money it takes in, from those who give voluntarily and those who must be forced, is spent to maintain that level of spending and that debt. When you go from not taking benefits to taking benefits, you add to the government's expenses. Therefore, the government will have to go out and get more money. Yes, it will get some of this money from those who willingly give it, but that will not be enough because the government is operating at a deficit and has debt. It will have to steal some money as well, and it still will not be enough because the government is operating at a deficit and has debt.

Your money does not disappear - it is spent, or rather it was spent. Your money, everyone else's money, and more money was spent before you even began taking benefits.

Yes, so knowing that the government is initiating force against us, why will you not let us retaliate? And why do you not want us to keep our property? Is it us who are violating rights or is it the government?

I have not argued that you should not, or must not, retaliate. I've merely asked that you not steal from a third party in order to make yourselves whole. I want you to keep your property and have not even remotely argued to the contrary. Clearly, it is the government which is violating your rights. I have never asked that you sacrifice yourselves to anything or anyone.

Since this is the principle you espouse then I would like to know if we should refuse to drive on govt. roads and use govt. schools and do the rest of the things on my previous list? This is not rhetorical.

Roads are built and paid for. To the extent that more money needs to be appropriated for their upkeep, then yes, you should refuse to drive on them. Since money needs to be appropriated to staff and maintain schools, you should also refuse to use them. Anything else would be sanction. To use RB's analogy, should I drive the guy who just robbed me to the next house on his list so he can steal some money to pay me back? Or, can I rationalize that the next house on his list is owned by someone who agrees with his method of getting funds?

The overarching question here is whether or not it's moral to steal from a third party in order to make yourself whole. Is it? We can debate whether or not that is actually happening, but I would like an answer to that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, it is the government which is violating your rights.

This is very important to remember and from this statement of fact what is below does not follow:

I've merely asked that you not steal from a third party in order to make yourselves whole.

[...]

The overarching question here is whether or not it's moral to steal from a third party in order to make yourself whole.

I have not argued that you should not, or must not, retaliate.

How would you like us to retaliate?

I want you to keep your property and have not even remotely argued to the contrary.

One way to keep your property is to accept it back from the criminal who stole it.

I have never asked that you sacrifice yourselves to anything or anyone.

You have not used the word "sacrifice" but it is exactly what you are asking us to do. A welfare state exists, we are forced to support it with the money that is stolen from us, the socialists delight in and collect from it but we who despise it and would be happy to see it go -- you want us not to collect from it. So the only people that would gain from the system would be the ones who support it. You are promoting the idea that we should enslave ourselves to the socialists. We pay into the system but we get nothing out of it, if that isn't slavery I don't know what is. You are saying that on principle we should willingly enslave ourselves, that is a despicable principle.

To the extent that more money needs to be appropriated for their upkeep, then yes, you should refuse to drive on them. Since money needs to be appropriated to staff and maintain schools, you should also refuse to use them.

You understand what you are saying right? The govt has its tentacles everywhere so from the above logic we could not eat because the govt subsidizes farming, we cannot get a mortgage because the govt subsidizes and sponsors most of them, we cannot use the currency because it is propped up by the govt, we must pay for our own schooling and for the socialist's schooling. You want us to become subsistence farmers and die at 35.

So the absurdity of your position should now be clear to you with this statement. When your principles tell you to enslave yourself to your enemies or simply to shrivel up and die, then it is time to reexamine your principles or at least your understanding of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your money does not disappear - it is spent, or rather it was spent. Your money, everyone else's money, and more money was spent before you even began taking benefits.

Since the money that has already been stolen IS going to be spent no matter what, the best course of action is to accept that money. There's a difference between money that has ALREADY been stolen and money that WILL be stolen. By not going on food stamps, the SAME amount of money is being stolen in order to fund a food stamp program. And the SAME amount of money is being spent whether or not you or anyone else goes on food stamps. The only reasonable argument you could make is that if, say, the number of people on food stamps increases by 10%, the government may decide to increase the budget of that program, meaning taxes may increase. Or maybe other programs will be further cut. The problem with that is there is no way to really figure what will happen in the future when it comes to a non-objective government, but what you are certain about in this context is that the money has ALREADY been stolen and no matter what you do that money is going somewhere, so it is perfectly moral to accept some kind of restorative justice provided you explicitly denounce taxation.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reasonable argument you could make is that if, say, the number of people on food stamps increases by 10%, the government may decide to increase the budget of that program, meaning taxes may increase. Or maybe other programs will be further cut. The problem with that is there is no way to really figure what will happen in the future when it comes to a non-objective government

I have to take issue with that. It is reasonable to say that in almost all cases a government program for social services will always expand as it is used. Even if the services don't expand they expand the staffing and costs. even if their budgets are cut they either spend money they don't have or raise taxes. Government union contracts have brought about a horrible state of affairs (surprise!) wherein most cases if the well runs dry and there's some time to go before they can levy some new taxes they cut the services while maintaining the staff- who then sit on the clock doing nothing.

While it is reasonable to accept some back of what was taken from you by force you must absolutely do it with your eyes open to the fact that your using of these programs helps perpetuate the programs. So as a rationally self-interested person you would want to exhaust other options before becoming a cog in that wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reasonable argument you could make is that if, say, the number of people on food stamps increases by 10%, the government may decide to increase the budget of that program, meaning taxes may increase.

The threat of further theft is not a moral argument against retrieving what is rightfully yours. The thief is committing the immoral action. That you were able to get some of your property back is good. That the thief decides to take more of your property is bad. Government bureaucrats do not act without free will.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The threat of further theft is not a moral argument against retrieving what is rightfully yours. The thief is committing the immoral action. That you were able to get some of your property back is good. That the thief decides to take more of your property is bad. Government bureaucrats do not act without free will.

I agree, I guess the use of "reasonable" there is not the best word choice. By "you" I meant specifically JeffS, in case I was vague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is reasonable to accept some back of what was taken from you by force you must absolutely do it with your eyes open to the fact that your using of these programs helps perpetuate the programs. So as a rationally self-interested person you would want to exhaust other options before becoming a cog in that wheel.

^This^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very important to remember and from this statement of fact what is below does not follow:

You're right. It doesn't follow. I should have written, "I've merely asked that you not be the impetus for another theft in order to make yourselves whole.../... The overarching question here is whether or not it's moral to instigate government theft from another party in order to make yourself whole."

Thanks for helping me clarify that.

There's a lot I would need to reply to in order to catch everyone, and most are contesting the same things, indicating that I haven't presented my position well enough. Perhaps a hypothetical will help (I'll keep it as simple as necessary, i.e. no borrowing from other nations, no inflation of the currency):

Day 1: Mr. A, Mr. B, Ms. C, and Ms. D are the only citizens of the country. Mr. A and Mr. B believe the government should provide food stamps to all who want/need them, and should get money, by force if necessary, from the citizenry in order to pay for this benefit. Neither Ms. C nor Ms. D believe this, but they go along with it because Mr. A and Mr. B have guns and threaten to put the ladies in jail if they don't. Mr. A and Mr. B each willingly give $10 each in order to provide this service, Ms. C and Ms. D reluctantly part with $10 each to likewise fund this program. At the end of the day, there is $40 in the program.

Day 2: Mr. A loses his job and can pay no taxes (as much as he'd like to, you just can't get blood from a stone), but he accepts $30 in benefits. Mr. B, Ms. C, and Ms. D each give, or have taken, $10 each. At the end of the day, there is $40 in the program.

Day 3: Sadly, Mr. B loses his job and can pay no taxes, but he accepts $30 in benefits. Mr. A is still out of work, so he pays no taxes, but again accepts $30 in benefits. Ms. C and Ms. D each have $10 taken from them. At the end of the day, there is no money in the program.

Day 4: Ms. C loses her job and debates whether or not she should accept benefits. "After all," she reasons, "I've been paying into the program for 3 days. If I get one day of benefits, I'm just getting the money previously stolen from me returned."

Questions:

Does her money still exist in the program?

Given there is no money left in the program, what will have to occur in order for Ms. C to recoup her stolen property?

If you agree the answer to the previous question is, "It must be taken from Ms. D," then is it moral for Ms. C to sanction the theft of Ms. D's property in order to make herself whole?

So the absurdity of your position should now be clear to you with this statement. When your principles tell you to enslave yourself to your enemies or simply to shrivel up and die, then it is time to reexamine your principles or at least your understanding of them.

You're offering a false dichotomy. Those certainly aren't the only options. However, do you believe Objectivist principles can be rejected if they are simply too difficult to adhere to?

Edited by JeffS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is reasonable to accept some back of what was taken from you by force you must absolutely do it with your eyes open to the fact that your using of these programs helps perpetuate the programs. So as a rationally self-interested person you would want to exhaust other options before becoming a cog in that wheel.

I disagree, it is a philosophy that perpetuates these programs. If everyone went on food stamps today, the program would end immediately.

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...