Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Deriving Ethics from Reality

Rate this topic


tbj2102@gmail.com
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Either the lake owner can allow access to his neighbors, even profit from it, or he can maintain his right to deny access, thereby relying on his neighbors to respect his right to surplus property at the expense of their own lives.

How would you know that either is true? How are you so sure the neighbors will die if they can't access the lake? Maybe there is an aquifer deep inside the ground, someone just needs to tap into it. How do you know if the lake owner can profit, anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you know that either is true? How are you so sure the neighbors will die if they can't access the lake? Maybe there is an aquifer deep inside the ground, someone just needs to tap into it. How do you know if the lake owner can profit, anyway?

This is the choice presented by example... either the lake owner chooses to barter (and profit from) surplus natural resources, or not. Locke's premise suggests the former, Objectivism seems to argue for the latter. May be a meteor will fall from the sky and put them all out of their misery, but until then, which is the more ethical choice? And why??

Are you suggesting the neighbors must respect the lawful owner's title until their last breath, because there may be another resource yet to be discovered? That seems like an argument for faith to me... pray for rain??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DA, the reality is if someone did own the only lake around it would not mater. We have rivers, wells, water-levels to dig down to, rain water to collect, and even chemistry to use. When I went to college for a short time (a looong time ago) I worked for as an assistant in the Chem department for extra cash. One of my jobs was to generate purified water for the experiments. It isn’t that hard to collect water and make it useful, and I could easily do it today despite no additional understanding of chemistry (or a degree). In the long run the owner of the lake would only hurt himself from isolation while the rest of us dug/collected/created our own water and traded with each other everything else we created as well.

Now, if you want to build a sci-fi tale around this and the consequences to human life that would be an interesting story. How would man cope on a terra-formed planet if the person running the water purification process went into business himself as some “Water-Baron”? But this is not applicable to real life. Human’s can easily produce their survival from the environment no matter how much someone owns of the infinitesimally small portions available (this is one huge planet after all) of resources that could possibly be construed as “essential” to life. The only way we could not is if you create an emergency situation or hypothetical construct that we are to accept as an argument, but in the first case all bets are off and in the second that is fiction.

Remember, freedom creates options and expands the availability of resources and wealth, not limits them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DA, the reality is if someone did own the only lake around it would not mater. We have rivers, wells, water-levels to dig down to, rain water to collect, and even chemistry to use. When I went to college for a short time (a looong time ago) I worked for as an assistant in the Chem department for extra cash. One of my jobs was to generate purified water for the experiments. It isn’t that hard to collect water and make it useful, and I could easily do it today despite no additional understanding of chemistry (or a degree). In the long run the owner of the lake would only hurt himself from isolation while the rest of us dug/collected/created our own water and traded with each other everything else we created as well.

Ever been to Death Valley ;)

I don't consider the example to be that much of a stretch, given that I know some property owners who rely on well water that diminishes to nothing in drought conditions... however I do concede there remains some options the neighbors might use, similar to those employed in survivor shows, e.g. Survivor Man and Dual Survival. The point is, is it ethically justified for a owner of a natural resource to withhold goods he hasn't labored to create, to waste them, such that his neighbors' equal right to preserve their life is impeded?

I agree that such a property owner wouldn't be popular, or particularly interested in his own preservation given the stress such a position would create... but doesn't such a position actually justify trespassing by his neighbors? I honestly don't see how it avoids it. It seems to me that Locke's premise avoids this moral hazard without pushing some ill-intentioned right to waste natural resources as the ultimate expression of a right to property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the 'takings clause' in the constitution, which says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Meaning, the government can seize private property for public use, as long as they pay for it. I haven't looked into it, but I assume Objectivists completely disagree with this clause due to the nature of property rights.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever been to Death Valley ;)

Yes. And if I am ever dumb enough to move there Darwin will hand me my just deserts ;)

I don't consider the example to be that much of a stretch, given that I know some property owners who rely on well water that diminishes to nothing in drought conditions... however I do concede there remains some options the neighbors might use, similar to those employed in survivor shows, e.g. Survivor Man and Dual Survival. The point is, is it ethically justified for a owner of a natural resource to withhold goods he hasn't labored to create, to waste them, such that his neighbors' equal right to preserve their life is impeded?

I agree that such a property owner wouldn't be popular, or particularly interested in his own preservation given the stress such a position would create... but doesn't such a position actually justify trespassing by his neighbors? I honestly don't see how it avoids it. It seems to me that Locke's premise avoids this moral hazard without pushing some ill-intentioned right to waste natural resources as the ultimate expression of a right to property.

Diminishing resources on your property does not give you a claim ticket to someone else’s property. That’s just an “emergency” backdoor to central planning, which now that I think about it is pretty much what has been going on since Clinton expanded the roll of FEMA.

Morality is individual based, self-conceived and self-implemented. It is one person’s choice to provide for his own life. Morality is not derived from others (altruism) but you (egoism). The only way you can deprive someone else of heir ability to live is to deprive them of their ability to produce or confiscate the result of that effort. Equality means equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. By trying to claim that people need to do a preapproved amount of work with natural resources you are inadvertently making the egalitarian outcome argument repackaged as an argument about opportunity. It is not, unless once again you invoke an emergency situation.

And really, just to demonstrate how this can go pear-shaped fast, just ask yourself who gets to decide what is acceptable use of property, who will get to enforce it, who will decide the beneficiary of confiscated property, and ultimately who will get it.

Ask yourself, who wins in that situation, Rearden or Boyle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is individual based, self-conceived and self-implemented. It is one person’s choice to provide for his own life. Morality is not derived from others (altruism) but you (egoism).

Subjective morality is by definition non-objective. By claiming that, "It is one person’s choice to provide for his own life", you are in effect arguing against subjective morality. If morality is everyone choosing to provide for their own lives, then morality is objective, and life is the standard. Locke makes the same argument, that everyone is entitled to their own preservation, and to claim by their own wit and labor that which is necessary to live from common, natural resources. I believe laissez faire capitalism depends on it.

The only way you can deprive someone else of heir ability to live is to deprive them of their ability to produce or confiscate the result of that effort. Equality means equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

... or deprive them of a natural resource, that being created by no man's wit or labor, and enforced by a tyrant's claim, "Might makes right". There's no equality in, "First come - take all".

By trying to claim that people need to do a preapproved amount of work with natural resources you are inadvertently making the egalitarian outcome argument repackaged as an argument about opportunity. It is not, unless once again you invoke an emergency situation.

If life is the standard, and everyone is entitled to their own preservation, then "pre-approved" only means that which is necessarily removed by one's wit and labor from common, natural resources to preserve one's life. Emergency situations only arise by natural disaster, or by one man's claim to a natural resource when it creates an artificial scarcity of that resource.

If my moral claim to a plentiful natural resource depended on denying it to others who are willing to barter for it; if the ultimate expression of my right to property, I didn't create by wit or labor, was demonstrated by pouring my water into my sand while others perished for want of it... because I could... then I'd check my moral premise, and prepare for war.

* edited for clarity *

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is particularly interesting to me, as it explores foundational premises derived from existence (natural reality) that support ethical standards for living and acquiring personal possessions (private property). For my part, I have come to consider moral reciprocity as the truest barometer of just social interactions, where the standard is life, and the sovereignty of one's life depends on non-coercive interactions with other lives. In this regard, I identify the following statements as best representing just ethics derived from reality...

--

"Sec. 25. Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence..." ~ John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Civil Government, Chap. 5, Of Property

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator* with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness**." ~ Declaration of Independence; *Creator being previously referred to as: Laws of Nature and of Nature's God; **the pursuit of Happiness alternately referred to as property

"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man." ~ ARL, Morality

--

In order to remain ethically consistent, and therefore just, one's sovereignty cannot be maintained unilaterally, i.e. it cannot depend on others having a lesser right to life and the property necessary to preserve it. Therefore the just preservation of ones life depends not only on rational thought and action, but on having some natural resources, as yet unclaimed, to work with; making a right to private property ethically delimited to the property of ones creation. In terms of natural resources, e.g. those things nature provides and maintains independently of man, there can be no justification for the legal exclusion of one party by any other party to that which neither party created.

Reference to "life boats" and "emergency situations" are rationalizations of the ethics of "first come - first served" and "might makes right", neither of which ethically support an equal (just) opportunity to preserve ones life by means of acquiring property necessary to accomplish that purpose; there must remain some unclaimed property to acquire. Where Nature provides that property, no man is ethically justified to claim it as his own to the exclusion of others.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

--

"Sec. 25. Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence..." ~ John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Civil Government, Chap. 5, Of Property

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator* with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness**." ~ Declaration of Independence; *Creator being previously referred to as: Laws of Nature and of Nature's God; **the pursuit of Happiness alternately referred to as property

And here is the rationalization of the rights to goods, rather than rights to actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything man-made is derived from natural resources that existed prior to man's existence. To put it another way, everything that exists, exists through the modification of existence. The water I'm drinking right now is a natural resource, but it's been modified by man- purified, pumped through drains, and eventually pouring out of a faucet into my glass. The glass I'm holding came from minerals and sand, all natural resources that have been modified by man- stirred together, heated up, and molded into a cylindrical shape. My wooden dresser came from trees, a natural resource that has been modified by man. The metal knobs on it came from ores, a natural resource that has been modified by man- extracted, processed, and refined... etc. So when I pay my water bill each month, I know that I'm not paying for water in it's natural form: it's been modified by man to better suit my needs.

So when you say this:

Therefore the just preservation of ones life depends not only on rational thought and action, but on having some natural resources, as yet unclaimed, to work with; making a right to private property ethically delimited to the property of ones creation.

...there must remain some unclaimed property to acquire. Where Nature provides that property, no man is ethically justified to claim it as his own to the exclusion of others.

what do you mean? Do you mean I can't buy a forest in order to log trees, so that I can create dressers? Do you mean I can't buy land to mine for ores, in order to create metal knobs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is the rationalization of the rights to goods, rather than rights to actions.

I see no rationalization of a right to goods in either of the statements I cited that you are pointing to... A right to the acquisition (or pursuit) of property is a right to action, is it not? The statement you omitted pointing to identifies the same ethical standard that the other two statements identify: man's life and his efforts to sustain it. You can argue that a right to preserve life and acquire property is inherently equal, or unilateral... Which is it?

Furthermore the goods in question clearly fall into two distinct categories: natural and man made. Who owns by right what nature produces without any man's action? The first to plant their flag on it?? If that were the case then the moon would be the property of the United States, and the remaining planets up for grabs. There is a clear distinction of property to be made between a naturally formed lake and a man made reservoir. In terms of just recognition of a man's action to acquire private property, lakes and reservoirs are not one and the same.

Logically there must be some unclaimed goods available for men to work to acquire, or your position becomes that all men are born into debt and must work their way out of it prior to claiming any personal property of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything man-made is derived from natural resources that existed prior to man's existence.

Correct

To put it another way, everything that exists, exists through the modification of existence.

OK....

The water I'm drinking right now is a natural resource, but it's been modified by man- purified, pumped through drains, and eventually pouring out of a faucet into my glass. The glass I'm holding came from minerals and sand, all natural resources that have been modified by man- stirred together, heated up, and molded into a cylindrical shape. My wooden dresser came from trees, a natural resource that has been modified by man. The metal knobs on it came from ores, a natural resource that has been modified by man- extracted, processed, and refined... etc. So when I pay my water bill each month, I know that I'm not paying for water in it's natural form: it's been modified by man to better suit my needs.

So everything that exists is man-made? :huh:

what do you mean? Do you mean I can't buy a forest in order to log trees, so that I can create dressers? Do you mean I can't buy land to mine for ores, in order to create metal knobs?

Did the individual you bought the forest from plant it? Are the ores you mine deposited by the individual you purchased the land from??

Who owns Nature, mdegges? And what exactly did they do to acquire it that justifies their right to sell it to some and deny it to others??

... or to waste it???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So everything that exists is man-made? :huh:

No- I was providing examples of items that men have created through the modification of natural resources. Most things that I use on a daily basis have been made possible by men, through the modification of natural resources: my bed, washing machine, dryer, stove, food, water, pens, paper, laptop, etc.

Did the individual you bought the forest from plant it? Are the ores you mine deposited by the individual you purchased the land from??

Ex nihilo nihil fit: out of nothing comes nothing.

Who owns Nature, mdegges? And what exactly did they do to acquire it that justifies their right to sell it to some and deny it to others??

... or to waste it???

Property rights had to start with someone, somewhere.

Where is my pocket-grames when I need it? :fool:

A better question, I think, is 'what would happen in an open access area?' A prof at my school wrote a paper about this back in 1954, about an open access fishery. He showed that if people are free to use a fishery, they will overuse the resource, due to the trail of thought: 'if I don't catch the fish someone else will.' Anthony Scott developed this further. 'He agreed with Gordon that when 'everybody's property is nobody's property' too much effort is likely to be devoted to fishing. He showed, however, that if there was sole ownership of the fishery as well as private ownership of fishing boats, then the fishing effort will be socially optimal.' [1] This shows that private ownership is socially optimal, whereas open access areas are not.

Just last year a paper was published showing that weak property rights can kill the economy. 'Suppose you took a freely available resource, but now anyone can contest your ownership of that resource. Depending on the consequences, you may not want to extract in the first place. It thus matters in which way the state is weak. If it is weak in that it gives away rights to natural resources, then there will be over-exploitation. If it is weak in that it cannot enforce property rights in general, and in particular when it comes to bringing products to the market, then it is the Wild West and under-exploitation may ensue. Theft is a powerful mechanism to kill markets.' [2] You can see the same idea here: if everyone has rights to natural resources (ie: open access areas), there will be over-exploitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Property rights had to start with someone, somewhere.

... as did ethics, however if the initial claim is unjustified then whatever follows is built upon a false premise. Let us step back a moment to what we can agree on...

1) Everyone is entitled to their own preservation.

2) Preservation requires source material, e.g. air, water, food, etc.

3) Ones own preservation doesn't imply a duty to the preservation of others.

4) The justification for private property depends on;

4a) being acquired by ones own labor, or

4b) being inherited as property acquired by a predecessor's labor.

5) There is no justification for acquiring private property by theft.

Unless we disagree on points 1-5, all that remains is to haggle over the ethics of the initial transition of common resource to personal property. So, what would happen in an open access area where everyone recognized each others right to the preservation of their own lives? Isn't this just another way to question the ethics of a free market society?? Who owns the market, and who grants access to it???

Locke suggests, and I'm inclined to agree, that open access to natural resources works fine, so long as there remains enough for others to claim by their own labor for the preservation of their own lives: "No body could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst." Furthermore, individuals in an open access area wouldn't want to draw the enmity of their neighbors by claiming resources beyond what was needed for self-preservation, or wasting resources others needed for self-preservation.

Thanks to the intervention of the State, we have yet to see true open access to natural resources, let alone true laissez faire capitalism. Over fishing of fisheries occurs because of the perception that one is cheating a bureaucracy rather than infringing on his neighbors right to acquire property. When dealing with bureaucracies, one adopts the policy of "use it or lose it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is this “First Come – Take all!” Did we discover a new continent when I wasn’t looking? Are the Feds giving away land to those who get there first?

When I say emergency situation I’m referring to the ethics of emergencies. The point is you keep building hypothetical situations that do not happen, not even periodically let alone on a daily bases, then want to rethink ethics and property rights to cater to this hypothetical situation. You build ethics around real day-to-day life, because that is how you live, not make-believe constructs that will never happen.

If you live for the unseen and likely-to-never-happen situation then you’ll be waiting a long time to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say emergency situation I’m referring to the ethics of emergencies. The point is you keep building hypothetical situations that do not happen, not even periodically let alone on a daily bases, then want to rethink ethics and property rights to cater to this hypothetical situation. You build ethics around real day-to-day life, because that is how you live, not make-believe constructs that will never happen.

As a computer programmer, I routinely check for the robustness of a system. Emergency situations test whether or not a particular code is fail-safe. To say that a code for living is only dependable for the day to day stuff, and can't be relied on in a crisis, falls short of any ethical standard I'd care to bet my life on.

Locke's premise avoids avoids the moral hazard of wasting or excluding others from life sustaining natural resources, and Objectivism appears to dismiss this as irrelevant; that someone who finds an oasis in the dessert is entitled to turn others away, or pour the water into the sand, as a demonstration of their right to own something nature provided. Locke suggests barter is ethically preferable to waste; Objectivism suggests waste is the ultimate proof of a property right.

We are copacetic regarding property rights of man-made objects, but we'll just have to disagree as to which code for living is ethically justifiable regarding ownership of objects provided by nature.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a little confused about the argument in the first place. It seems both 'sides' are here using the concept property to justify positions as it concerns ethical or nonethical principles of society. The term property implies 'society' in the first place. Or more specifically civilsed society. In nature a lake is a lake, in a civilsed society the idea of individual ownership of the lake as a resourse would have to be delineated. And if ownership were then defined in such a way as to actually do detriment to the owner one assume rational people would not work to become "owner".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a little confused about the argument in the first place. It seems both 'sides' are here using the concept property to justify positions as it concerns ethical or nonethical principles of society. The term property implies 'society' in the first place. Or more specifically civilsed society. In nature a lake is a lake, in a civilsed society the idea of individual ownership of the lake as a resourse would have to be delineated. And if ownership were then defined in such a way as to actually do detriment to the owner one assume rational people would not work to become "owner".

I am questioning the justification of a claim to a naturally produced resource. I presume the ownership of lakes, forests, mineral deposits, etc., is worth the effort to aquire them, and I presume no one would object to owners who acted as caretakers of natural resources, e.g., privately owned parks... However, I question the "ethical" principle that allows one to claim property provided by nature, for the purpose of intentionally wasting it. The closest approximation of the principle at work is a scorched-earth policy, which I consider to be an act of war against ones neighbors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Everyone is entitled to their own preservation.

2) Preservation requires source material, e.g. air, water, food, etc.

3) Ones own preservation doesn't imply a duty to the preservation of others.

4) The justification for private property depends on;

4a) being acquired by ones own labor, or

4b) being inherited as property acquired by a predecessor's labor.

5) There is no justification for acquiring private property by theft.

Is everyone entitled to their own preservation, or the right to think and act in the manner that they choose?

Locke suggests, and I'm inclined to agree, that open access to natural resources works fine, so long as there remains enough for others to claim by their own labor for the preservation of their own lives.. Furthermore, individuals in an open access area wouldn't want to draw the enmity of their neighbors by claiming resources beyond what was needed for self-preservation, or wasting resources others needed for self-preservation.

Thanks to the intervention of the State, we have yet to see true open access to natural resources, let alone true laissez faire capitalism. Over fishing of fisheries occurs because of the perception that one is cheating a bureaucracy rather than infringing on his neighbors right to acquire property. When dealing with bureaucracies, one adopts the policy of "use it or lose it".

Economists, correct me if I'm wrong (I learned this in econ last year so it's a bit fuzzy): 'Common pool goods' are not excludable (meaning that anyone can take the goods) and are rivalrous in consumption (meaning that if I fish all day and catch 100 fish, that leaves less fish in the water for everyone else). Because the price of the good is too low (or in this case, free) there's no incentive for people to limit their intake of the good. They can take as much as they want, and it's free!! Unless there's some sort of regulation (ie: a lake owner limits the number of people who can fish in his lake, the number of hours they can fish, etc.) then the lake will quickly run out of fish, due to overfishing. The reason this overuse occurs is not because people think they're cheating a 'bureaucracy' - it's because 1) each person is acting in his own self-interest, and 2) the price of the good is too low. Further, people understand that if they don't fish today, other people will, and the total amount of fish available for them to catch tomorrow will be reduced.

Where is this “First Come – Take all!” Did we discover a new continent when I wasn’t looking? Are the Feds giving away land to those who get there first?

DA said: "... if the initial claim is unjustified then whatever follows is built upon a false premise."

How did property rights begin in America? Was it by the 'first come - take all' motto?

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is everyone entitled to their own preservation, or the right to think and act in the manner that they choose?

I don't see this as a case of either/or; one implies the other.

Economists, correct me if I'm wrong (I learned this in econ last year so it's a bit fuzzy): 'Common pool goods' are not excludable (meaning that anyone can take the goods) and are rivalrous in consumption (meaning that if I fish all day and catch 100 fish, that leaves less fish in the water for everyone else). Because the price of the good is too low (or in this case, free) there's no incentive for people to limit their intake of the good. They can take as much as they want, and it's free!! Unless there's some sort of regulation (ie: a lake owner limits the number of people who can fish in his lake, the number of hours they can fish, etc.) then the lake will quickly run out of fish, due to overfishing. The reason this overuse occurs is not because people think they're cheating a 'bureaucracy' - it's because 1) each person is acting in his own self-interest, and 2) the price of the good is too low. Further, people understand that if they don't fish today, other people will, and the total amount of fish available for them to catch tomorrow will be reduced.

The end result of this line of reasoning always legitimizes the regulation of morality; that people on their own can't be trusted to do the right thing. Do people really need a benevolent tyrant, or landlord, in order to survive?

DA said: "... if the initial claim is unjustified then whatever follows is built upon a false premise."

How did property rights begin in America? Was it by the 'first come - take all' motto?

Spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am questioning the justification of a claim to a naturally produced resource. I presume the ownership of lakes, forests, mineral deposits, etc., is worth the effort to aquire them, and I presume no one would object to owners who acted as caretakers of natural resources, e.g., privately owned parks... However, I question the "ethical" principle that allows one to claim property provided by nature, for the purpose of intentionally wasting it. The closest approximation of the principle at work is a scorched-earth policy, which I consider to be an act of war against ones neighbors.

Again the arguement seems almost specious, would not intentional wasting require effort(labor, money ect) , what rational person would purposely exort effort for absolutely no gain?

The North American aboriginies used resources provided by nature though without the concept of private property. They used force to protect their hunting and fishing grounds from rival tribes. The hobbesian nature of the premises of this arguement seem to show through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the derivation of ethics as a whole; morality is a set of principles needed to guide man's actions. Morality should be seen as a set of 'rules' that if followed should help man achieve attainment of values. The ultimate value being the happiness of a life lived morally. Ethical arguements should not proceed from the premises of what is not permitted. True ethical behaviour is concerned with actions that are consistent with achieving values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again the arguement seems almost specious, would not intentional wasting require effort(labor, money ect) , what rational person would purposely exort effort for absolutely no gain?

The point is that not all property owners are rational, thus some consideration towards the ethical justification of a right to claim exclusive ownership of a natural resource is appropriate.

The North American aboriginies used resources provided by nature though without the concept of private property. They used force to protect their hunting and fishing grounds from rival tribes. The hobbesian nature of the premises of this arguement seem to show through.

I'll have to brush up on my Hobbes, but initially I don't see a contradiction with his view, “the true doctrine of the Lawes of Nature is the true Morall philosophie”.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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