Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anarchism vs. Government

Rate this topic


nimble

Recommended Posts

I read Rand in the early years of high school. Ive read all her non fiction and most of her fiction. I loved it. I still do. I think they are great works.

The question I have is about anarchism versus Rand's minimal state. I have read her arguments in Capitalism about rights and proper function of the state. I agree that if a state is moral, then her way would be ideal.

HOWEVER, I have never seen an argument that supports the moral CREATION of a state. How is it created from the anarchism that is natural? I agree that a govt can be useful, but I cant see how forcing a person into a system they dont accept is moral. And if you allow one person to secede for personal preference, what keeps the rest from leaving and retreating back into anarchy.

Basically, I would just like to hear the argument for the creation of a state. Then from there, how would the state remain in place without taxation? And why can a state force people who may not agree with their laws, punishments, etc to live by them?

I really do genuinely want to understand this. I read the articles on strike the root, where some O'ist points out the contradictions in anarchism, then an anarchist replies. And it seems to me that I am somewhere in the middle, leaning more toward anarchism.

Edited by GreedyCapitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would you think that would get you banned? Trust me, alot worse has washed through here. Every now and then we'll get a crusader who thinks he can take on an entire forum of Atheists, or we'll get a Libertarian Kelley-ite (as I was up until very recently. I had a philosophical epiphany :D ) in here.

as for your question at hand, I suppose the great example in history would be the Founding of the United States. Government sprung up out of necessity.

and in a moral society as defined by Rand, there really wouldn't be any incentive to not want to join. You are basically paying for the upholding of your own rights, no more. Of course, if you are a collectivist who wants to have his cake and eat it too, you are free to leave and go to another country.

as for secessionism, under the ideal system there is no reason to secede (emphasis today is on the term ideal system, The war of Southern Independence is the topic for another day :huh: ). The only reason to possibly secede is if you wish to break the law, which in that case still does not prevent apprehension, You would be sought after regardless of the country you are in, just like how the United States is doing with Osama Bin Laden. If a group of collectivists want to form their own commune, so long as they aren't violating anyone's rights, they are free to do so (for however long they think they can last without someone to mooch off of)

Milton Friedman put it very eloquently. Government should behave in a manner similar to an umpire or referee. They are there to moderate the peace, not be a player. What would a sport without umpires be like?

Strike-the-Root is O.K. Lately it's been nothing but anti-war and Anti-Bush sentiment, which is ok to an extend, but come on, diversify! LewRockwell.com has gotten like that too, ever lowering standards though I still enjoy reading Lew's King Lincoln files.

ARI would be my favorite, if only they actually posted new essays every now and then :P (but ARI's essays tend to be of the best quality) as of right now, I like the Ludwig Von Mises institution, and the Cato institute has some pretty good info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Rand in the early years of high school. Ive read all her non fiction and most of her fiction. I loved it. I still do. I think they are great works.

The question I have is about anarchism versus Rand's minimal state. I have read her arguments in Capitalism about rights and proper function of the state. I agree that if a state is moral, then her way would be ideal.

HOWEVER, I have never seen an argument that supports the moral CREATION of a state.

I recommend re-reading "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government," found in VOS and the appendix of CUI.

"Rights" are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

There is the linking of morality to rights. So here's the link between rights and the necessity to institute governments:

A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

Do men need such an institution—and why?

[...]

To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man's nature for his proper survival.

Man's rights can be violated only by the use of physical force.

Note: this is not intended as a full argument, but rather to show you that at least the arguments are there in Miss Rand's two main articles on the subject ("Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government").

I agree that a govt can be useful, but I cant see how forcing a person into a system they dont accept is moral. And if you allow one person to secede for personal preference, what keeps the rest from leaving and retreating back into anarchy.

Nobody is allowed to "secede" from a government--they are allowed to leave the country if they wish.

Then from there, how would the state remain in place without taxation?

See "Government Financing in a Free Society," from VOS.

And why can a state force people who may not agree with their laws, punishments, etc to live by them?

Laws are established to fulfill the conditions necessary for men to live a moral life. If you don't agree, you must necessarily say that others don't have the right to live moral lives--meaning, you wish to initiate force against them. Once you initiate force, he has every right to defend himself (a right that he transfers to the state). If you believe in force, you will be answered with force--as you deserve. If you choose not to live by using force, your freedom will be protected.

I really do genuinely want to understand this. I read the articles on strike the root, where some O'ist points out the contradictions in anarchism, then an anarchist replies. And it seems to me that I am somewhere in the middle, leaning more toward anarchism.

Anarchism is just pressure group warfare--the biggest gang wins, since the criminal is rewarded (with loot) and the victim is punished (by having his rights violated). Anarchism is not consistent with man's rights--it just encourages the use of force. Do you disagree with rights, too, or just governments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nimble, is there something in the Forum Rules that would lead you to believe you would be banned for asking questions about anarchism versus government?

Have you seen some action by the moderators that would lead you to believe you would be banned for asking such questions?

In summary, what are the facts on which you are basing your worry about being banned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

HOWEVER, I have never seen an argument that supports the moral CREATION of a state. How is it created from the anarchism that is natural? I agree that a govt can be useful, but I cant see how forcing a person into a system they dont accept is moral. And if you allow one person to secede for personal preference, what keeps the rest from leaving and retreating back into anarchy.

...

Hi Nimble,

I wouldn't exactly agree that anarchism is natural. Following the inductive approach, I can summon to mind tons of examples from history of people ruled by thugs at some level of organization -- whether the band, the clan, the tribe, or some larger state. I can think of no concrete I would describe as anarchism IF by anarchism you mean individuals having freedom living with no recourse to an established law, and not being oppressed by others in some way.

The benevolent universe premise does not imply that all people are good. Bad folks are out there. They seem to search for and exploit any niche they can find.

Now consider the example of the mongol invasion of Europe in the 13th century (14th?). Europe was basically chopped up into little warring nations. Along comes this massive army from the east -- from out of a blind spot, giving little indication of the impending threat. The mongols hit one army -- in Poland -- and destroy it in a completely one-sided battle. I'll stop with the example from history, but ask: what will happen to an anarchist non-state when Kubla Kahn shows up on the border?

I believe (point 1) that people in an anarchist non-state would have reason to organize and build an army / intelligence agency in anticipation of such a threat.

But then I think the question of how a state would morally be created "from the anarchism that is natural," is the whole problem. The implied claim is simply false. Anarchism is not natural. We do not have it today, and anyone seeking to establish a state (or non-state) of any type would have to factor neighboring non-anarchist countries into their calculations.

-- Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that in the ideal capitalistic state-- and this has been suggested by Rand, or Peikoff, I can't remember-- taxation would be optional. And I apologize, for I won't go into the logistical details because my vague memory would only serve to butcher them. The basic idea is that the government itself would not violate any basic human rights (those acknowledged by Objectivism). The creation of an ideal state would not put any new demands on an individual who is already 1) acting selfishly, and 2) not initiating force.

Honestly, if you could invent a way of guaranteeing individual rights without any need for government, I'm sure everyone here would be with you. Unfortunately, nobody has yet come up with such an idea :huh: Government is the only device currently available that is capable of securing those basic rights put forth by Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I agree that a govt can be useful, but I cant see how forcing a person into a system they dont accept is moral.

...

Keep in mind the nature of that system, and what it really means to 'force' someone into it.

Capitalisim is the system that bans the initiation of force. So, to force someone into that system means that they are forced to not initiate force against others. Which means that those that do accept the system are defending themselves against those who don't accept it, i.e. those who want to the freedom to initiate force.

If you accept my translation of your statement, then the question becomes: "Why is it immoral to allow individuals to initate force?"

And to that question, you do or should already know the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I have never seen an argument that supports the moral CREATION of a state. How is it created from the anarchism that is natural?

...

Basically, I would just like to hear the argument for the creation of a state.

...

Again, what does it mean for people to 'create' this state. It means that a group of people agreeing to not tolerate anyone initiating force against them.

For example, I don't want to be forced, you don't want to be forced, nor do Bob, Charlie, Suzi, or Sam. So, we decide to defend ourselves... together. It is an alliance among individuals against a common enemy. And if anyone tries to initiate force against us, we fight back. Anyone is free to keep themselves separate from us, but if they try to cross over and impinge on our rights, we don't let them. And if anyone else tries to initate force against them, they must fight back by themselves, without our help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I always get caught up here. We agree that property rights make the land you work YOURS. What right does government have to organize itself on YOUR land?

Second question, if men are not allowed to initiate the use of force, how would the men in government bar other competitors from services such as providing law, police, etc, without initiating the use of force?

Last question, if more than one govt is made, and they compete in service providing, how are lines drawn between govts? Is it just arbitrary, or determined by war? And if govt cannot own land, because all land is private, what right does it have to attack to gain land and set its boundaries?

Thank you...if you could answer these questions thoroughly I think that would just about solve my questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I always get caught up here. We agree that property rights make the land you work YOURS. What right does government have to organize itself on YOUR land?

The government doesn't have a right to organize itself on your land.

Second question, if men are not allowed to initiate the use of force, how would the men in government bar other competitors from services such as providing law, police, etc, without initiating the use of force?

Governments use retaliatory force, and the use of force is not permitted except by the government (in this limited context). There is no way for a private company to provide defense, law enforcement or contract enforcement without the ability to punish (use force against) those who attack, break laws, or infringe your contracts. There is no way for a private company to do this, as these actions would be illegal and the government would punish anyone doing so.

Last question, if more than one govt is made, and they compete in service providing, how are lines drawn between govts? Is it just arbitrary, or determined by war? And if govt cannot own land, because all land is private, what right does it have to attack to gain land and set its boundaries?

I refer you again to "The Nature of Government." This is directly addressed there:

Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of "competing governments" take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to "shop" and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms "competition" and "government." Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones's house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith's complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea I was wondering what the difference between a "government" and a private company? To me the distinction seems non-existent, tell me what Im missing?

Also, and I do think that a govt can and SHOULD allow private protection. Such as private guards, detectives, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Differences between a government and private company:

Governments exist to serve everyone that lives in a given society by protecting their rights. They use retaliatory force, under the guidance of objective law, to uphold justice. Governments do not properly make products to sell to the public, or provide public services (by that I mean its "services" are the protection of your rights--not anything else, and only governments are capable of this since only they can use force against those who violate rights).

Companies are voluntary associations of men wishing to combine their capital to provide some products or services other people will be willing to buy, in order to gain a profit.

The purpose of a company is to make money, while the purpose of a government is to protect individual rights. A company is a voluntary organization and deals with others exclusively by free trade. A government has the exclusive power to deal with people by force (only against criminals who initiate the use of force).

The two have a lot more differences than similarities. The main distinction is free association vs. force.

Also, and I do think that a govt can and SHOULD allow private protection. Such as private guards, detectives, etc.

Citizens in a society delegate their right of self-defense to the government so that punishment and guilt can be determined by objective standards (see "The Nature of Government," again). In instances where it is not possible for the government to protect one's rights, like emergency situations when a criminal is assaulting you, of course it is entirely appropriate to defend yourself.

In light of this, private guards (security guards) are perfectly acceptable. Their job, though, is limited. They aren't allowed to punish the criminals, but rather to determine when property is being stolen or someone is being attacked and act in their immediate defense (by eliminating any immediate threat and then holding the criminal until the police arrive).

Private detectives are fine too--they can gain information so long as they don't initiate force. Unlike police detectives, they cannot collect evidence, search houses, etc. Private detectives can spend their time collecting information publicly available (or that people are willing to tell them).

So, there are a lot of professions that look like they "mimic" government functions, but they do not. They can provide for immediate defense in situations where the government cannot help you--or gather information. However, they cannot punish criminals or take private property. They cannot use force as the government does (except in the case of an immediate threat, which normal people have a right to use force in as well). The people working in these professions can only do what any other normal person could do--they do not have the extra power (of using retaliatory force under objective law) that governments do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it okay for the government to use force against a peaceful group of people? Is it okay to do so if it maintains the monopoly on the use of retaliatory force?

A government's job is protection of individual rights. If a particular group of people is not violating anybody's rights, the government has no right to initiate force against it.

And a government has a monopoly on retaliatory force because it is in everyone's self-interest. Otherwise a society could not function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A government's job is protection of individual rights. If a particular group of people is not violating anybody's rights, the government has no right to initiate force against it.

And a government has a monopoly on retaliatory force because it is in everyone's self-interest. Otherwise a society could not function.

Your paragraphs are contradictory in relation to my question. If a particular group of people are not initiating force (ie, a private police company that enforces individual rights, but for a fee, while inside the jurisdiction of the government), you are saying the government has no right to initiate force against it. How would the government maintain a monopoly on retaliatory force then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea I was wondering what the difference between a "government" and a private company? To me the distinction seems non-existent, tell me what Im missing?

Also, and I do think that a govt can and SHOULD allow private protection. Such as private guards, detectives, etc.

One place to start in thinking about these questions is to review what "government" means. Since this forum is dedicated to the study, in part, of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, you could begin with the meaning of government in her writings.

So, Nimble, what did Ayn Rand mean when she said "government"?

Where do you find her discussion of the meaning of that concept? (Specifying the source will help others in this forum study the same issue -- and doublecheck your understanding of her discussion.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a particular group of people are not initiating force (ie, a private police company that enforces individual rights, but for a fee, while inside the jurisdiction of the government), you are saying the government has no right to initiate force against it. How would the government maintain a monopoly on retaliatory force then?

You don't seem to understand what is meant by retaliatory force. Any time force is initiated, the government responds with what is called "retaliatory" force--to hold the criminal responsible (making him compensate the victim to the extent it's possible, for example). They can take away the criminal's rights (through due process) in retaliation for violating someone else's. For example, consider a crime of stealing. Person A steals person B's money. The government has every right to force person A to return the amount of money he stole (in addition to potential jail time, etc.).

So, say you have some sort of private police force (which won't work). This victim goes to the private police force, and claims person A stole his money. The police go and take the criminal's money, returning it to the victim.

If you notice, any "private police company" would have to use force against the criminal in order to function. There is no way for a police "company" to enforce rights without initiating force--they have to be able to punish those that it believes initiate force. Since the government did not process the case under objective law, and use its retaliatory force, the government views this "police company"'s use of force as an initiation of force against the alleged criminal. The "police company" (or whoever acted for it) will be held responsible by the government.

If a crime is committed against you, you don't have a right to go to whoever you think did it and steal back whatever property you think he stole from you. That would be a crime. It is the government's job to objectively define the laws and enforce them. Companies can only do what people can--they cannot use force either. So it is impossible for a company to do the government's job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did Ayn Rand mean by government, as opposed to what normal people mean when they say government? I guess I am caught up on how you expect a government composed of men, who are fallible, and easily corruptible. (Consider the type of person it takes to want to get into government). Why would it be any different from a private protection agency.

Is there any specific text that actually shows the difference. I dont want a broad definition from a book of govt.

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: The following represents my own thinking on this issue and may or may not be consistent with Objectivism, although I think it is.

Let me adress your second question first:

Second question, if men are not allowed to initiate the use of force, how would the men in government bar other competitors from services such as providing law, police, etc, without initiating the use of force?

Competition, services, trade, etc. None of this can exist unless the protection of individual rights has been instituted. You can't compete to provide services such as law, police, etc. before these things have been set up to establish the context that makes trade and competition possible. Be careful not to forget the context being dealt with here.

Now back to your first question:

Okay I always get caught up here. We agree that property rights make the land you work YOURS. What right does government have to organize itself on YOUR land?
And you ask this next question later, but I will adress it in conjunction with your above question:

And if govt cannot own land, because all land is private, what right does it have to attack to gain land and set its boundaries?

The government is created and then maintained by its own future citizens. They are the ones who organzied their government, and it is on their land, not yours, that it is organized.

The government doesn't own land and it doesn't need to. It's citizens own the land and it's citizens are the ones who grant it the use of their land. There is no attacking invovled. The boundaries of the governments jurisdiction are set by the land owned by the citizens of that goverment.

Last question, if more than one govt is made, and they compete in service providing, how are lines drawn between govts? Is it just arbitrary, or determined by war?
Let me first adress a situation in which there is only one government and its citizens living in a geographical region with other inviduals who are not citizens of that goverment.

Now if we are talking about a single geographical region, how should this government (the people who agreed to form themselves into a government) treat everyone else in that region (the people who havn't agreed to join the government)?

Well, the group of people who are in the government should pay no attention to those who aren't. But if any of these non-citizens try to initiate force against the citizens of this government, then their government will retaliate against them just like it would against any foreign agressor.

If any of these non-citizens try to interact with those under the government jurisdiction through trade, then they will be doing so without any contract protection. Which means that if the non-citizen engages in fraud, the citizen's government will retaliate. If the citizen cheats the non-citizen, the non-citizen has no recourse. If they try to steal their 'merchandice' back, the citizen's government will treat this as an initiation of force and retaliate. In other words, the govenment only recognizes the rights of its own citizens. It is their government instituted for their protection, and it is these non-citizens who have chosen not to participate. Thus they reap none of the benefits.

But why would someone choose not to participate? Perhaps your thinking that they want to form their own government in that same region. So let me move on to adress that situation.

So what if all the non-citizens form their own goverment, thus creating two governments, government A and government B, in the same geographical region with A-citizens and B-citizens living side by side? How would this then work?

This is where the passage quoted by jedymastyr from "The Nature of Government" comes into to the picture. Remember that we are talking about two different governments that are run differently. They do not have the same set of laws and they are not enforced in the same way (If these factors were the same, then why on earth wouldn't they just merge into one government?). As long as these two "countries" do not interact at all, then there would be no problem. But since they do overlap geographically, it would be near impossible for them not to overlap socially as well. And since they run things differently, the two systems an not 'fit' into together; the difference in law and enforcement neccesitates conflict.

That conflict would likely escalate into war and the winner would win the region.

So even if a single geographical region was set up with multiple governments, it would evolve into a single goverment by one of two ways. Either their respective laws would evolve so that they were identical and goverments would merge peacfully, or they would be an enevitable conflict, and they would merge violently, after the war was over.

Thank you...if you could answer these questions thoroughly I think that would just about solve my questions.

I hope I helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a post earlier today, this is what I asked you, Nimble:

So, Nimble, what did Ayn Rand mean when she said "government"?

Where do you find her discussion of the meaning of that concept? (Specifying the source will help others in this forum study the same issue -- and doublecheck your understanding of her discussion.)

And this is what you said:

What did Ayn Rand mean by government, as opposed to what normal people mean when they say government? I guess I am caught up on how you expect a government composed of men, who are fallible, and easily corruptible. (Consider the type of person it takes to want to get into government). Why would it be any different from a private protection agency.

Is there any specific text that actually shows the difference. I dont want a broad definition from a book of govt.

Are we not communicating, Nimble? I will try again.

Open up your copy of The Ayn Rand Lexicon to pp. 189-190. Do you see a definition of "government" there? What sources do the excerpts cite? Have you read the original essay from which those excerpts were taken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't seem to understand what is meant by retaliatory force.  Any time force is initiated, the government responds with what is called "retaliatory" force--to hold the criminal responsible (making him compensate the victim to the extent it's possible, for example).  They can take away the criminal's rights (through due process) in retaliation for violating someone else's.  For example, consider a crime of stealing.  Person A steals person B's money.  The government has every right to force person A to return the amount of money he stole (in addition to potential jail time, etc.).

So, say you have some sort of private police force (which won't work).  This victim goes to the private police force, and claims person A stole his money.  The police go and take the criminal's money, returning it to the victim.

If you notice, any "private police company" would have to use force against the criminal in order to function.  There is no way for a police "company" to enforce rights without initiating force--they have to be able to punish those that it believes initiate force.  Since the government did not process the case under objective law, and use its retaliatory force, the government views this "police company"'s use of force as an initiation of force against the alleged criminal.  The "police company" (or whoever acted for it) will be held responsible by the government. 

If a crime is committed against you, you don't have a right to go to whoever you think did it and steal back whatever property you think he stole from you.  That would be a crime.  It is the government's job to objectively define the laws and enforce them.  Companies can only do what people can--they cannot use force either.  So it is impossible for a company to do the government's job.

On Objective law: Is this only something a government can create? Isn't a government just made of people? Wouldn't a private company be composed of the same people?

Clarify for me:

What you are saying is that when a government police force apprehends a criminal, that is retaliatory force, because it is based on Objective law. And when a private force--that only punishes for crimes that have violated individual rights--apprehends a criminal, that is the initiation of force.

I think the answer lies in evaluating what Objective law really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a post earlier today, this is what I asked you, Nimble:

And this is what you said:

Are we not communicating, Nimble? I will try again.

Open up your copy of The Ayn Rand Lexicon to pp. 189-190. Do you see a definition of "government" there? What sources do the excerpts cite? Have you read the original essay from which those excerpts were taken?

Im sorry I dont have the lexicon yet. Thats pretty expensive. However, I do own capitalism, so I do have the nature of govt essays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im sorry I dont have the lexicon yet. Thats pretty expensive. However, I do own capitalism, so I do have the nature of govt essays.

When you say you "own capitalism" (a highly unlikely thing), are you trying to say you have in your possession Ayn Rand's book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?

If so, looking at it and your notes, can you see how Ayn Rand there defines government? What is the definition?

I have a second question for you, one based on my own Odyssey from being a libertarian, "anarcho-capitalist" many years ago:

Can you name (1) an example of a government and (2) an example of a sustained anarchy? In each case, pick the example that comes closest to matching the ideal of protecting individual rights.

By thinking of real-life examples, and by essentializing properly, you can make sure your thinking is objective and not rationalistic.

P. S. -- I wish that anarchy (supposedly competing defense agencies) were the superior "system." Sadly, it is not. I can select among competing grocery stores, for example, but I know life would be hell if there were no supreme court with one set of laws. I am 60 years old. I have seen too many instances of continuing and even escalating conflict where there is no single system to adjudicate the conflicts. Anarchy is a fantasy created by people rightly frustrated with the sorry record of past and existing governments. Such people -- when they are honest -- make the grave error of failing to essentialize about the nature of government.

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...