Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rule Of Law

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

By what logic do you maintain that my grandfather had a right to evade coercive laws but I don't? If disobedience to bad laws was justifiable in 1920, it is no less justifiable today.

I didn't say he had the right - I said he may have. I don't know enough about your grandfather's situation to know whether evading laws was the right thing to do.

If people had meekly followed the law, there would have been no pressure (especially from police officers and prosecutors) to repeal it.

You're forgetting political pressure.

This is where we need some clarification. Why does the fact that we have a representative government oblige me to comply with coercive legislation? . . . I never signed any document surrendering my rights to the will of the people.

Remember the context: A free society. If the majority reigns terror on the minority, you have no obligation to follow their laws. However, if society is fundamentally free, and the government is representative (i.e., you can change it peacefully), using persuasion is an honest acknowledgement of that legitimacy.

Well, if it is a free state, then the coercive laws it imposes on its citizens must surely be accidents.

As for whether I consider the government free. Well, it is -- except for those occasions when it is not. :)

Let me ask you something: When do you think a state has the right to defend itself? Is it when the state is fundamentally free, or completely free? Imagine a state that had completely laissez-faire capitalist policies in every single area except one: Selling 2% milk is illegal. Does it have the right to defend itself? Will you acknowledge that despite this stupid law, it is fundamentally free?

That is the source of this "package deal." If you cannot admit the inescapable dichotomy between legitimate and illegitimate, America would have no right to defend herself. She is legitimate not because she is completely free, but because she is free in the most fundamental areas, allowing her citizens to change the laws by persuasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't say he had the right - I said he may have. I don't know enough about your grandfather's situation to know whether evading laws was the right thing to do.

He broke a state law against miscegenation.

You're forgetting political pressure.

Not at all. Prohibition was concocted by do-gooders and busybody reformers who mistakenly believed that the government could actually force people into abstinence. The 18th Amendment was approved because a majority of state legislatures believed the same idiotic idea. It was not the public suddenly changing its mind about alcohol being bad that ended Prohibition. People still thought alcohol was bad, but massive civil disobedience convinced them that making it illegal does not make it disappear.

Remember the context: A free society. If the majority reigns terror on the minority, you have no obligation to follow their laws.

First of all, I see no reason why acts of coercion, such as theft, should not be resisted just as one would resist an act of terror. As I’ve asked out before, why should one wait until government has become fully totalitarian before one starts protecting oneself?

However, if society is fundamentally free, and the government is representative (i.e., you can change it peacefully), using persuasion is an honest acknowledgement of that legitimacy.

First of all, tax avoidance is peaceful. No guns are fired, no noses bloodied. Secondly, there is no reason why a citizen cannot both evade taxes and also use political persuasion to change the system. That’s precisely how Prohibition came to an end.

Let me ask you something: When do you think a state has the right to defend itself? Is it when the state is fundamentally free, or completely free? Imagine a state that had completely laissez-faire capitalist policies in every single area except one: Selling 2% milk is illegal. Does it have the right to defend itself? Will you acknowledge that despite this stupid law, it is fundamentally free?

If the state’s only coercive act is to prohibit 2% milk, then all of the actions of the state’s officers are legitimate except those involving low fat milk banning. In this scenario, it would be wrong to interfere with state officials in any matter not involving milk. However, since the banning of 2% milk is clearly coercive, black market sellers and buyers would be fully justified in breaking the law. So, to answer your question, the state has the right to defend itself from the initiation of force. It does not have the right to "defend" itself from black marketeers, for they are not initiating force.

That is the source of this "package deal." If you cannot admit the inescapable dichotomy between legitimate and illegitimate, America would have no right to defend herself. She is legitimate not because she is completely free,

It has never been my position that “America would have no right to defend herself.” If we proceed from the premise that national defense is legitimate, then I cannot see that there is any disagreement between us. What we had been discussing was coercive government actions, and I hope that at no time did I imply that national defense was to be regarded as such. I had been making the point that if a nation is fundamentally free, then citizens who deprive government of the opportunity to act coercively, are steering the government in the right direction. They should be cheered for helping to keep government honest and moral.

but because she is free in the most fundamental areas, allowing her citizens to change the laws by persuasion.

I value respecting rights far above majority vote. In fact, I fear that majority vote is the surest means by which a poorer majority can mooch off the wealth of a richer minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He broke a state law against miscegenation.

I've thought about this, and decided that I am in agreement with David Odden on the point that a law must allow man to live according to his nature, and preventing love on the basis of race would do just that. However, income taxes, to the extent that they don't impoverish you, or alcohol prohibition, to the extent that your life doesn't rely on it, do not fit into this category.

It was not the public suddenly changing its mind about alcohol being bad that ended Prohibition. People still thought alcohol was bad, but massive civil disobedience convinced them that making it illegal does not make it disappear.

That's what persuasion is for.

First of all, I see no reason why acts of coercion, such as theft, should not be resisted just as one would resist an act of terror.

Because you delegate your right to self-defense to the government. Although it may abuse that privelege to a degree, as long as you consider it your legitimate protector, you treat it as such.

First of all, tax avoidance is peaceful. No guns are fired, no noses bloodied. Secondly, there is no reason why a citizen cannot both evade taxes and also use political persuasion to change the system. That’s precisely how Prohibition came to an end.

I'll try to be a little more careful with my word usage. By "peaceful," I meant "legal." Yes, you can persuade and break laws, but I have already outlined why I think that is a contradiction.

If the state’s only coercive act is to prohibit 2% milk, then all of the actions of the state’s officers are legitimate except those involving low fat milk banning. In this scenario, it would be wrong to interfere with state officials in any matter not involving milk. However, since the banning of 2% milk is clearly coercive, black market sellers and buyers would be fully justified in breaking the law. So, to answer your question, the state has the right to defend itself from the initiation of force. It does not have the right to "defend" itself from black marketeers, for they are not initiating force.

You misunderstood me. I want to know: Does that state have the right to defend itself from foreign aggressors? Do you consider it legitimate and deserving of the right to self-defense, or not?

It has never been my position that “America would have no right to defend herself.” If we proceed from the premise that national defense is legitimate, then I cannot see that there is any disagreement between us. What we had been discussing was coercive government actions, and I hope that at no time did I imply that national defense was to be regarded as such. I had been making the point that if a nation is fundamentally free, then citizens who deprive government of the opportunity to act coercively, are steering the government in the right direction. They should be cheered for helping to keep government honest and moral.

You're missing my point (perhaps I cleared it up in the previous quote). You defend America's right to national defense because she is fundamentally free. In other words, you have used the same justification you at one time called a "package deal." Why are you willing to call her legitimate enough for national defense, but you refused to ascribe such a "package deal" to her before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've thought about this, and decided that I am in agreement with David Odden on the point that a law must allow man to live according to his nature, and preventing love on the basis of race would do just that. However, income taxes, to the extent that they don't impoverish you, or alcohol prohibition, to the extent that your life doesn't rely on it, do not fit into this category.

But the point of resisting coercion is not that acquiesce to it is fatal, but rather that coercion, even of the minor sort, is still immoral and one has no moral obligation to cooperate with predators. Isn’t giving in to immoral people what Rand called “Sanction of the Victim”? Regarding my grandfather: the right to marry is extremely important to some; to others the right to hold on to one's hard-won earnings and not see them spent on those who hate the productive and successful is also extremely important.

That's what persuasion is for.

In the end, it was not arguments but actions that won the debate. Lawmakers were far more persuaded by the futility of trying to stop people from all strata of society from imbibing than they were by the eloquence of those who spoke out against Prohibition. Those who had earlier voted for Prohibition didn’t admit that they were wrong about Devil Rum; they simply admitted to the impossibility of enforcement.

Because you delegate your right to self-defense to the government. Although it may abuse that privelege to a degree, as long as you consider it your legitimate protector, you treat it as such.

I have never formally delegated any rights to the government. At no point in my lifetime has government asked my permission prior to laying hands on my life and treasure. Still, even if there were some contract to that effect, I can assure you that taking on the government as protector does not entitle it to prey on me itself. To be even more precise, since far more of my money has been stolen by governments than by private sector thieves, I do not regard government as a successful protector at all.

I'll try to be a little more careful with my word usage. By "peaceful," I meant "legal." Yes, you can persuade and break laws, but I have already outlined why I think that is a contradiction.

Again, I have shown there is no contradiction. A government that anoints itself as protector while engaging in more thieving than protection -- that, sir, is the party engaging in contradiction. Not me, the victim of its predatory activities. If adhering to moral law and not cooperating with predators is “contradictory,” then we must certainly live in a topsy-turvy, up is down, A is non-A world.

You misunderstood me. I want to know: Does that state have the right to defend itself from foreign aggressors? Do you consider it legitimate and deserving of the right to self-defense, or not?

Sure. And let me add, that I consider it the right of car thieves, check forgers, and shoplifters to defend themselves from foreign aggressors, too. (After all, just because a woman steals a purse in a store, does she deserve to get raped by a conquering soldier?) Since the government’s acts of coercion against its own populace are entirely separate from foreign aggression, I see no reason why the government of mixed economy Finland of the 1930s should not have defended itself against a Soviet invasion in the Winter War.

You're missing my point (perhaps I cleared it up in the previous quote). You defend America's right to national defense because she is fundamentally free. In other words, you have used the same justification you at one time called a "package deal." Why are you willing to call her legitimate enough for national defense, but you refused to ascribe such a "package deal" to her before?

Perhaps I cleared it up in my previous post. But to try to be even clearer: I would defend the U.S. government’s right to repel a foreign invader as a legitimate activity of government while at the same time holding that it is completely immoral to demand a percentage of a citizen’s wages at the point of a gun. Furthermore, I never specifically defended “America's right to national defense” on the grounds that “she is fundamentally free.” Rejecting package deals allows one to see that some government actions are better than others. Even in the darkest days of Stalinist Russia, the Soviet government could still act morally if it brought the perpetrator of a rape to justice.

(Sorry, won't be able to repost until next week. Kindest regards. Tom)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the point of resisting coercion is not that acquiesce to it is fatal, but rather that coercion, even of the minor sort, is still immoral and one has no moral obligation to cooperate with predators. Isn’t giving in to immoral people what Rand called “Sanction of the Victim”?

I think we have hit an impassible barrier. You believe that choosing to use speech instead of illegal means to fight unjust laws in a free society is equivalent to "[cooperating] with predators" (a phrase you used twice in this post) and "giving in." I don't know what else to say without repeating myself, so let the record show that I disagree.

Regarding my grandfather: the right to marry is extremely important to some; to others the right to hold on to one's hard-won earnings and not see them spent on those who hate the productive and successful is also extremely important.

Fair enough. To each individual person, I ask: Which do you value more, the government's protection of your rights, or the rights that the government is violating? If the former, then you regard the government as a legitimate protector of your rights; if the latter, I don't want to hear you defending your government's right to self-defense.

Those who had earlier voted for Prohibition didn’t admit that they were wrong about Devil Rum; they simply admitted to the impossibility of enforcement.

Regardless, that's what persuasion is for. If you don't believe in the power to change peoples' minds, why have this discussion with me?

I have never formally delegated any rights to the government.

Will you under a laissez-faire system?

Still, even if there were some contract to that effect, I can assure you that taking on the government as protector does not entitle it to prey on me itself.

One last time: Just because I'm arguing not to break unjust laws does not at all mean that the government is "entitled" to impose them.

Sure. And let me add, that I consider it the right of car thieves, check forgers, and shoplifters to defend themselves from foreign aggressors, too. (After all, just because a woman steals a purse in a store, does she deserve to get raped by a conquering soldier?)

Just to be clear: You believe that even immoral governments have the right to defend themselves. You think that America's right to self-defense lies not in the fact that she is fundamentally rights-respecting, but rather, that she simply is a nation. Am I misinterpreting your analogy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may, it appears that Tom Robinson is arguing that any government has the right to defend itself from illegitimate attacks and no government has the right to defend itself against legitimate attacks.

Soviet Russia would have the right to defend itself against Nazi Germany, but not against the United States. The United states would has the right to defend itself against Osama Bin Laden but not against an Objectivist who does not pay taxes.

He appears to reject the idea that one can or should judge whether a nation is "mostly free" for this purpose or that such a judgment has any bearing on things in this context.

I would be interested to hear your response to the position I have outlined, Oakes, even if it is not in fact Tom Robinson's position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have hit an impassible barrier. You believe that choosing to use speech instead of illegal means to fight unjust laws in a free society is equivalent to "[cooperating] with predators" (a phrase you used twice in this post) and "giving in." I don't know what else to say without repeating myself, so let the record show that I disagree.

On the contrary, I do not think that “choosing to use speech” is equivalent to cooperating with predators at all -- any more than I consider crying “Stop, thief!” a form of cooperation with a purse snatcher. I have made it clear that openly voicing opposition to bad government is not only legitimate but often an effective means to redress grievances. Didn’t you read my post #43 above? I wrote, “. . . there is no reason why a citizen cannot both evade taxes and also use political persuasion to change the system.” I understand that some citizens cannot easily escape government coercion and must submit under pain of incarceration. On the other hand, if one has an opportunity to safely avoid coercion, he may do so morally and with a clear conscience.

Fair enough. To each individual person, I ask: Which do you value more, the government's protection of your rights, or the rights that the government is violating?

This is a false dilemma. I do not have to choose one over the other. I can value government police protection against burglars and at the same time value the services of an illegal, undocumented worker employed in my factory. Since man has a right to peacefully engage in production and keep what he has earned, there is no contradiction in saying that government should stop burglars from entering my home, and also saying that government should not prevent me from contracting with the employee of my choice. To cooperate with government in one instance and not the other is simply to hold moral law above state law.

If the former, then you regard the government as a legitimate protector of your rights; if the latter, I don't want to hear you defending your government's right to self-defense.

Well technically, as Ayn Rand has explained, governments do not have rights; “only an individual man can possess rights” (Rand,“Collectivized ‘Rights’”). And I believe I have previously answered your point about whether or not those who use coercion have a right of self-defense. Just because A aggresses against B, we cannot say that A loses her right to defend himself against C’s aggression. If a shoplifter steals a necklace from a shop owner, does she then lose the right to defend herself from a rapist? I say, no. The acts of aggression are not related. Always hold on to context: an individual who initiates force forfeits only her rights proportionate to and specific to her use of force. So the shoplifter must return the necklace and may even have to serve jail time. But she doesn’t lose the right to defend herself from other predators.

Regardless, that's what persuasion is for. If you don't believe in the power to change peoples' minds, why have this discussion with me?

The point I was making is: between 1919 and 1933 politicians did not change their minds about alcohol being unhealthy, sinful, etc. They changed their minds about the practicality of enforcing Prohibition. Specifically, they were not persuaded by words arguing that government shouldn’t ban alcohol; they were persuaded by the actions of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens engaging in daily civil disobedience that proved that government couldn’t ban alcohol.

Will you under a laissez-faire system?

I will voluntarily surrender to government only what it is morally entitled to.

One last time: Just because I'm arguing not to break unjust laws does not at all mean that the government is "entitled" to impose them.

I was responding to an earlier point: I had written, “First of all, I see no reason why acts of coercion, such as theft, should not be resisted just as one would resist an act of terror.”

You responded, “Because you delegate your right to self-defense to the government. Although it may abuse that privelege to a degree, as long as you consider it your legitimate protector, you treat it as such.”

Now since you acknowledge that government is not entitled to coerce me, and since I have shown that using government’s monopoly protection services does not constitute a contract with government to coerce us or a grant of legitimacy on anything government may do, there can be no argument left for obeying laws that violate rights -- other than the practical matter of not wanting to go to jail.

Just to be clear: You believe that even immoral governments have the right to defend themselves.

As mentioned above, there are individual rights but not government rights. So let’s phrase the question another way: should an immoral government put up a defense against foreign attack? Again, we have to look at context: if the invasion and overturning of the existing government mean more freedoms for the citizens of the land, then, no, by our wishes, the government should put up no defense (although, in some cases, individual officers of the government could rightfully protect themselves from being slaughtered). On the other hand, if invasion portends no real change in freedoms for the occupied people, then, yes, we should hope the “immoral government” would put up a fight, for military invasion itself exacts huge costs in lives and property.

You think that America's right to self-defense lies not in the fact that she is fundamentally rights-respecting, but rather, that she simply is a nation. Am I misinterpreting your analogy?

Man's rights, including his right to himself and his property, are derived from his nature. Rights are forfeited when one violates the rights of another. But it is not all or nothing. A small rights violation does not mean one loses all rights. Even a serious violator such as a bank robber could still hold on to some of his rights -- including the right of self-defense. The people of America, being non-rights-violators for the most part, certainly have a right to defend themselves from foreign invasion. They may rightfully call on their government to protect them, provided that the invaders are no better than the existing government. But the fact that a government successfully discourages foreign invasions and potential loss of freedoms in a country, places no moral obligation on its citizenry to submit to that government when it initiates force against them.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may, it appears that Tom Robinson is arguing that any government has the right to defend itself from illegitimate attacks and no government has the right to defend itself against legitimate attacks.

Soviet Russia would have the right to defend itself against Nazi Germany, but not against the United States. The United states would has the right to defend itself against Osama Bin Laden but not against an Objectivist who does not pay taxes.

He appears to reject the idea that one can or should judge whether a nation is "mostly free" for this purpose or that such a judgment has any bearing on things in this context.

I would be interested to hear your response to the position I have outlined, Oakes, even if it is not in fact Tom Robinson's position.

Inspector, I think this is a fair summary of my position. However, for clarification, I should point out that governments per se do not have rights. Thus, instead of saying the government of Soviet Russia has a "right" to respond to invasion, we would say that Soviet citizens have a right to use the government's power to prevent death or even greater tyranny to themselves.

Edited by Tom Robinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may, it appears that Tom Robinson is arguing that any government has the right to defend itself from illegitimate attacks and no government has the right to defend itself against legitimate attacks.

Soviet Russia would have the right to defend itself against Nazi Germany, but not against the United States. The United states would has the right to defend itself against Osama Bin Laden but not against an Objectivist who does not pay taxes.

Inspector, I think this is a fair summary of my position. However, for clarification, I should point out that governments per se do not have rights. Thus, instead of saying the government of Soviet Russia has a "right" to respond to invasion, we would say that Soviet citizens have a right to use the government's power to prevent death or even greater tyranny to themselves.

This, I think, hits the crux of the disagreement, of the "false dilemma." A government either has the right to exist - and thus to preserve itself - or it doesn't. For that reason, I don't think the free/non-free dichotomy is avoidable.

Just because A aggresses against B, we cannot say that A loses her right to defend himself against C’s aggression. If a shoplifter steals a necklace from a shop owner, does she then lose the right to defend herself from a rapist? I say, no. The acts of aggression are not related. Always hold on to context: an individual who initiates force forfeits only her rights proportionate to and specific to her use of force. So the shoplifter must return the necklace and may even have to serve jail time. But she doesn’t lose the right to defend herself from other predators.

I definitely agree with this as it applies to individuals, but it is a little disingenuous to pretend that this applies to governments as well. Governments hold a specific job, and if they don't do it right, they have no right to exist - and thus, no right to preserve themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This, I think, hits the crux of the disagreement, of the "false dilemma." A government either has the right to exist - and thus to preserve itself - or it doesn't. For that reason, I don't think the free/non-free dichotomy is avoidable.

As I've point out, there can be no government rights, only individual rights. (See Ayn Rand, "Collectivized 'Rights'".) We can say that those serving as government officers have rights, but no rights beyond what they would have as individual citizens. Since no individual has the right to coerce another, neither would any agent of government. Regarding foreign invasion and “preservation of government,” those in government office would be acting properly if they took actions which repelled forces intent on killing or enslaving the citizenry. However, that role does not morally empower them to take such coercive measures as taxation and conscription. Moral law applies to everyone. Thus even your “free governments” have no legitimate authority to impose coercive laws, and in the absence of state authority to coerce, every citizen has a right to resist any form of government rights violation.

I definitely agree with this as it applies to individuals, but it is a little disingenuous to pretend that this applies to governments as well.

Why not? If an “an individual who initiates force forfeits only her rights proportionate to and specific to her use of force,” why would that not also apply to a government official? Surely moral law is not a double standard, applying one way to individual citizens, but another way to individuals serving in government? As Ayn Rand wrote in “Man’s Rights,” “Individual rights supersede any public or social power.”

 

Governments hold a specific job, and if they don't do it right, they have no right to exist - and thus, no right to preserve themselves.

Certainly, one of the “specific jobs” of government officials is to raise revenue. And, I’m sure we agree that the right way to do this is without coercion. However, we should not necessarily conclude that a government that raises revenue coercively should immediately cease to exist. Following the principles of “Man’s Rights,” we can say that a flawed government’s methods should be reformed, and that in the interim citizens who do not wish to be coerced may rightfully resist bad laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've point out, there can be no government rights, only individual rights. (See Ayn Rand, "Collectivized 'Rights'".) We can say that those serving as government officers have rights, but no rights beyond what they would have as individual citizens. <snip>

Why not? If an “an individual who initiates force forfeits only her rights proportionate to and specific to her use of force,” why would that not also apply to a government official? <snip>

Understood; it was just shorthand. I recall Yaron Brook saying the exact same thing - that immoral governments have no right to exist - in the Q&A section of his lecture, the Morality of War. It means that when you as a government official abuse your power, you have no right to continue being a government official. With power comes responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood; it was just shorthand.

Good to see we're on the same page. That is, of course, essential.

I definitely agree with this as it applies to individuals, but it is a little disingenuous to pretend that this applies to governments as well. Governments hold a specific job, and if they don't do it right, they have no right to exist - and thus, no right to preserve themselves.

Also good to see we agree on this principle.

Tom Robinson asserts that a government which acts to violate rights can morally be resisted without undermining the principle of law as such. I agree. If that principle is endangered, it is by the rights-violating government itself and not by someone who violates the unjust law.

The criterion to determine what a person can do is just as he illustrated: a person may resist an unjust action of a rights-violating government, but not a just one. A rapist has no right to resist arrest in the Soviet Union or in the USA. A tax-evader does in both.

The presence or absence of the freedom of speech does not give a moral obligation to people to accept the violation of their rights.

Now, one interesting point you raise is the question of whether a government has the right to defend itself. You rightly point out that Tom's definition of proper action would make such a calculation impossible.

For reference, here is what you said:

Fair enough. To each individual person, I ask: Which do you value more, the government's protection of your rights, or the rights that the government is violating? If the former, then you regard the government as a legitimate protector of your rights; if the latter, I don't want to hear you defending your government's right to self-defense.

I think that, whether you realize it or not, you are in fact arguing from the standpoint that a government can posess rights. But as you know, a government cannot posess rights. A government can neither have nor not have a right to defend itself. It can only have a right to defend the individuals who make up its clients.

The dichotomy you present - that either a nation has the right to defend itself or not - is a false one, I think. I know this is going to raise questions on your part, so I encourage you to ask them. If I'm wrong here, I'd like to know about it.

But from what I have constructed here, the only question a person must ask is if it is worth the personal risk to violate an unjust law. (In most cases, it is not)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

There has been some discussion here of whether a person can get the law changed by persuasion. I wonder what guidelines are appropriate for determining that.

(For the next paragraph, if you are not already familiar with it, you may want to learn just some basics about Kelo v. City of New London. Just Google the case name, there is plenty of info out there.)

For example, what if the Supreme Court decides in favor of New London? Would it then be fair to say that Suzette Kelo could not get the law changed by persuasion? Would she then be justified in doing something of a Cortlandt by totally destroying the property? Would she then be justified in shooting anyone who tried to enforce the law by confiscating her property? (For these last two questions, I'm still addressing only the moral propriety. I'm assuming that she had made the personal decision that "enough is enough," i.e. that she didn't want to live anymore in a country that had stolen her home.)

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...