Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Accepting Government Funds

Rate this topic


softwareNerd

Recommended Posts

Someone asked me whether it would be okay for an Objectivist who is laid off to accept welfare. Here is my answer.

The relevant reference would be Ayn Rand's essay "Question of Scholaships", in the compilation "The Voice of Reason". On first glance, welfare might appear different from scholarships, but the principle is the same.

Speaking generally, there are people who are being immoral when they accept welfare (or scholarships). There are others who do the moral thing when they accept welfare (or scholarships). To judge them, we'd have to know more about them, why they are in the situation they are in, what they believe, and so on.

I will speak for my own case.

If I am ever laid off I will sign up for every government handout allowed to me. I doubt I'll get much of my hard earned tax money back, because I'll probably get back to work soon enough.

Even if I had a permanent disability and had to stop working, I would happily accept government money. This is not the system I would have wanted as an Objectivist, but I will not let others force me into a system of their own AND also insist that I not use it to my benefit.

Knowing what I know about myself, I cannot imagine myself in any context in which it would be immoral for me to take money. The contexts in which this would be true (e.g. I decide that I'd rather just become a bum and mooch off others) are too far fetched for me personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Interesting idea. I have $$ saved up, because I don't want to have to rely on the government, however in today's society the government has forcibly confiscated my honest earnings. I have a family to think about so it's likely that if I ever lost my job I would:

1) Institute cost-cutting measures around the house, emergency budget and estimate how long the savings will hold out (my wife would be excellent at this).

2) Begin sending resumes out to get back into my profession ASAP.

3) Get a part time job somewhere (eg: convenient store, wal-mart, preferably a non-union place with flexible hours)

4) Apply for unemployment.

I don't have enough confidence in the "unemployment" system to depend on it at all. However, the money was forcibly confiscated from me, so I may as well try to get it back.

In TVOR, Rand wrote: "The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism".

So, in practice, calculate the money taken from you to support the "welfare state", add interest and this is the amount you should be comfortable receiving from the state for restitution. In the meantime, you should continue to oppose and vote against the welfare state. This is not hypocrisy.

Demetrius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in practice, calculate the money taken from you to support the "welfare state", add interest and this is the amount you should be comfortable receiving from the state for restitution.

I would agree with you in principle, but not on the specific method of calculation. A college student who is just starting out, and who has not paid tax would still be justified in taking a government scholarship. Neither would I tell them to use their parents tax-payments as a starting point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get social security money.

It's hard to deal with the horrible government beaurocracy; I hate going to the Social Security office and dealing with people who cannot speak English and having to sit there and state why I want money from some idiot employee who loses my records, etc. They play a looping informational video in the background nonstop and it's so dumbed down in every way that it's about on a third grade level.

I am eligible because I have one severely disabled parent and one deceased parent and thus qualify for it.

I do it only because I am simply taking back a small part of the money my father paid into Social Security for so many years. And it makes me so sick to have to do it (have to in that it'd be stupid to throw away the money, although I don't need it to survive). I just want to puke.

Is it okay to cheat the government out of money, since it itself cheats people out of their money? Even if (unlike my case) you're not just drawing out money your parents put in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it okay to cheat the government out of money, since it itself cheats people out of their money?  Even if (unlike my case) you're not just drawing out money your parents put in?

That is a very different topic. The thread titled Rule of Law should give you a starting point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In TVOR, Rand wrote: "The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism"."

In other words then, it's the state of mind that determines whether or not this act is morally justified. Objectively, of course, there is no difference between a parasite taking public money or an Objectivist taking public money: in either case, public money is taken. The way a person regards the act is too subjective a criterion, in my opinion.

Demetrius, you stated: "So, in practice, calculate the money taken from you to support the "welfare state", add interest and this is the amount you should be comfortable receiving from the state for restitution. In the meantime, you should continue to oppose and vote against the welfare state. This is not hypocrisy."

I agree with you---as long as you have had taxes taken from you, it is not hypocrisy to want to get that money back while at the same time voting against the welfare state. However, in the case of public scholarships or, in the case of drawing unemployment when you haven't put that much in, the situation does become hypocrisy. Saying that "my parents paid in" is a cop out, in my mind: you aren't automatically entitled to money your parents put in. This is merely rationalization, an effort to get around having to put your money where one's mouth is. Either you can support yourself on your own without government assistance, or you can't. Thinking that an act is wrong for others because they don't have a proper sense of life, but it's OK for you because you do have a proper sense of life, is too subjective a criterion to effectively judge an act with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Objectivist, though, would take all the necessary steps that would promote his or her life - like keeping a couple bucks aside just in case you are laidoff or disabiled or cultivating personal relationships in which you exchange value for value . Government welfare, in my reasoning, is only something for last support. How can one oppose the welfare state, yet not make preparations in case of an emergency and then rely on the government for money?

I'm going into my 6th year of working (started at 15) and have paid perhaps thousands of dollars into social security, unemployment, yadda yadda. I've also taken perhaps thousands in subsides for state university for student loans and just the lower cost of education ($25k at private uni. versus about $2k at Rutgers). So, it sorta evens out. The whole point to the essay on scholarships is that you can take the government money as a last resort since you've paid into the system (and your parents) and as long as you oppose the welfare state overall.

I guess it would work for the disabiled (truely disabled, not alcoholics and druggies) and older generation as well for social security. But, as Objectivits or students of O'ism we must make every safeguard to prevent such reliance on the government for welfare because that's pro-life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am ever laid off I will sign up for every government handout allowed to me. I doubt I'll get much of my hard earned tax money back, because I'll probably get back to work soon enough.

I gather from this that you regard receiving welfare as a legitimate way of getting back money taken from you through taxation. If so, would it also be legitimate for a businessman to get money back by receiving a government subsidy in the form of a tax-supported stadium? How about a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gather from this that you regard receiving welfare as a legitimate way of getting back money taken from you through taxation.  If so, would it also be legitimate for a businessman to get money back by receiving a government subsidy in the form of a tax-supported stadium?  How about a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts?

In 21st century America, the welfare state and the far reach of government are so omnipresent that it's nearly impossible to not be touched by both on a daily basis. If I go see a ball game in a tax supported stadium, I'm benefiting from government theft. If I send my child to a public university, I'm also benefitting from government theft. The welfare state is particularly pernicious because it encourages and even forces people to access the "goodies" it offers so freely.

I don't see a problem with Softwarenerd's view of unemployment compensation. I know that I have personally paid far more into the system than I could ever draw out. However, if the time came when I needed to access unemployment, I would do it without hesitation. After all, if the government confiscated less of our wealth, my savings would be far greater and I wouldn't have a need for unemployment in the event I lost my job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a problem with Softwarenerd's view of unemployment compensation.  I know that I have personally paid far more into the system than I could ever draw out.  However, if the time came when I needed to access unemployment, I would do it without hesitation.  After all, if the government confiscated less of our wealth, my savings would be far greater and I wouldn't have a need for unemployment in the event I lost my job.

So I take it that you see government subsidies in the form of baseball stadiums or NEA grants as legitimate ways of getting back stolen tax money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I take it that you see government subsidies in the form of baseball stadiums or NEA grants as legitimate ways of getting back stolen tax money?

No I don't. Both should be abolished because neither is a legitimate function of government (among other reasons). My only point in mentioning sports stadiums and public universities is that government subsidies are everywhere. You could hardly walk out your door if you insisted on avoiding all things that have been susidized in any way by the government with stolen funds.

Unemployment benefits are a little different in that people who work pay a specific tax (FUTA) that is deducted from their payroll in order to fund these benefits. Given that we're all forced to pay the tax, why not take advantage of unemployment benefits if you need them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unemployment benefits are a little different in that people who work pay a specific tax (FUTA) that is deducted from their payroll in order to fund these benefits. 

I don't see how the fact that a tax has a specific purpose makes it more legitimate to accept benefits from that tax. There is no denying that FUTA collects funds via the threat of force. And there is no denying that it is a form of wealth redistribution. Some people are less likely to be unemployed than others, so those who are better at holding on to jobs end up subsidizing those who are not.

Given that we're all forced to pay the tax, why not take advantage of unemployment benefits if you need them?

Given that we're all forced to pay taxes to subsidize the arts, why not take advantage of art subsidies by applying for one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how the fact that a tax has a specific purpose makes it more legitimate to accept benefits from that tax.  There is no denying that FUTA collects funds via the threat of force.  And there is no denying that it is a form of wealth redistribution.  Some people are less likely to be unemployed than others, so those who are better at holding on to jobs end up subsidizing those who are not.

Given that we're all forced to pay taxes to subsidize the arts, why not take advantage of art subsidies by applying for one?

I agree with you that the unemployment insurance system redistributes wealth and should be abolished. However, working people are forced to pay a dedicated tax (FUTA and/or SUTA) into the unemployment insurance fund. If one were to calculate the amount you have paid into the unemployment system, I can't see a moral problem with taking that specific amount (no more) out in the form of benefits.

In the case of an NEA grant, the person receiving the grant would be taking far more in benefits than he or she had paid in taxes to support the NEA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that the unemployment insurance system redistributes wealth and should be abolished.  However, working people are forced to pay a dedicated tax (FUTA and/or SUTA) into the unemployment insurance fund.  If one were to calculate the amount you have paid into the unemployment system, I can't see a moral problem with taking that specific amount (no more) out in the form of benefits.

In the case of an NEA grant, the person receiving the grant would be taking far more in benefits than he or she had paid in taxes to support the NEA.

How do you know this? There are a number of artists who work in the private sector for years, paying and paying taxes, before applying for a federal grant. What's wrong with their getting some of the money back by asking the feds to fund their artistic projects?

Or to take another example, the owners of baseball teams make loads of money from ticket sales and broadcast rights -- and pay loads back in federal, state and local taxes. What would be wrong with a team owner asking for a handout for local government in the form of a city-subsidized stadium? Isn't that only getting back what he paid in? Shouldn't we applaud this subsidy as an act of justice?

In fact, as long as a corporation does not take more out than it puts in, how can Objectivism raise any complaints about corporate welfare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Objectivist, though, would ...[keep]... a couple bucks aside just in case you are laidoff or disabiled or cultivating personal relationships in which you exchange value for value . 

I agree with you completely. My post was not meant to imply that one should plan one's finances so that one cannot manage without government help.

Government welfare, in my reasoning, is only something for last support.
I would not put it that way. If I am laid off, I know I can support myself for a fair amount of time. In fact, as long as my wife still has a job, a drastic lowering of lifestyle could see us into retirement. However, I will still take unemployment, pretty much like a "tax-refund".

As I said in an earlier post, I would not use my actual taxes, plus interest etc . as a strict calculation. However, I agree with the principle behind it.

There are even situations where I would consider myself justified in taking government benefits worth a lot more than I can pay into the system. For example: I think that government rules have not just made health-care expensive, but they have also helped make it inaccessible for a certain group of working poor: the group between those eligible for Medicaid and those covered by private insurances. [if this is debatable, it would deserve a separate thread.]

An Objectivist in that working-poor, category, who suffers a so-called "catastrophic illness" would be justified in taking government health benefit for a few millions, which may be more than he will ever pay in taxes.

I say "an Objectivist" above very deliberately. However, to go into that requires a separate post. [This is the "state of mind" nuance that AqAd objected to above.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know this?  There are a number of artists who work in the private sector for years, paying and paying taxes, before applying for a federal grant. What's wrong with their getting some of the money back by asking the feds to fund their artistic projects?

Or to take another example, the owners of baseball teams make loads of money from ticket sales and broadcast rights -- and pay loads back in federal, state and local taxes. What would be wrong with a team owner asking for a handout for local government in the form of a city-subsidized stadium?  Isn't that only getting back what he paid in?  Shouldn't we applaud this subsidy as an act of justice?

In fact, as long as a corporation does not take more out than it puts in, how can Objectivism raise any complaints about corporate welfare?

On the one hand we're talking about paying into what is essentially an insurance system run by the government, presumably for the benefit of working people. It is set up specifically to provide income in the event that you become unemployed. Of course, you are paying for the insurance coverage whether you want it or not. Nevertheless, I can't see why it would be immoral to access the specific benefit for which you have paid directly. Perhaps you can explain it to me (if that's what you're arguing)?

Your other examples involve the government confiscating wealth from everyone and giving it to a chosen few (the well-connected businessman, the politically correct artist, etc....). That is theft, plain and simple. Why should anyone be forced to support something like a baseball stadium unless they willingly choose to buy a ticket?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AqAd & SoftwareNerd,

You both brought up a good point, I didn't mean to apply that calculation to money that you hadn't paid. You can't really lay claim to money that your parents paid to the government. It has been pointed out that if your parents are paying (and willing to pay for) college, this could be true.

I will admit that I received financial aid in the form of govt subsidized stafford loans, however, I am someone who wanted to go to school badly enough to find a way. In the absence of government loans, the private sector would fill the gap for student loans. Additionally, people who did not have a burning desire to go to college wouldn't waste their time.

Also consider the economic ramifications of govt subsidies. When it subsidizes college loans, the government artificially increases demand resulting in an increase in college tuition. One could argue that govt subsidies create a system in which one needs to utilize the subsidies unless one is extremely wealthy (defeating the purpose of the program to provide affordable education in the first place).

Other examples of govt programs exacerbating conditions they were designed to alleviate:

In the case of unemployment, the cost of employing people is increased by the taxes imposed on businesses and individuals (ex SS) and limitations on the work-week (ex: state requires overtime pay after 40 hrs). These things raise the cost of employing a worker, resulting in a business hiring 10 instead of 11 or laying off 2 people instead of 1.

Public schools: I should not have to pay for public schools. What if I have no children or choose to send my children to private schools. The government creates a system in which, unless I am wealthy enough, I would need to really stretch to send my child to a private school (to pay prop tax & private school tuition).

Good article on Cap Mag on subsidies resulting in unaffordable housing. The underlying principles are applicable to all subsidy programs.

http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=1404

Demetrius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AqAd & SoftwareNerd,

You both brought up a good point, I didn't mean to apply that calculation to money that you hadn't paid.

I should clarify that AqAd and I made very different points. Without putting words into AqAd's mouth, I understand him to be using tax-money as a "maximum allowable amount" you can morally take back from the government. On the other hand, I would not say that at all. For an Objectivist, it could be view almost as a starting point, not as an maximum.

Also, AdAq and I disagree on the fundamental issue of whether being an Objectivist (i.e. a practicing Objectivist) makes a difference to the morality of taking government funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand we're talking about paying into what is essentially an insurance system run by the government, presumably for the benefit of working people.  It is set up specifically to provide income in the event that you become unemployed.  Of course, you are paying for the insurance coverage whether you want it or not.  Nevertheless, I can't see why it would be immoral to access the specific benefit for which you have paid directly.  Perhaps you can explain it to me (if that's what you're arguing)?

Your other examples involve the government confiscating wealth from everyone and giving it to a chosen few (the well-connected businessman, the politically correct artist, etc....).  That is theft, plain and simple.  Why should anyone be forced to support something like a baseball stadium unless they willingly choose to buy a ticket?

You have not made any important distinctions here. As I’ve already explained, the unemployment tax is also a form of confiscation (it is involuntary) and involves a transfer from the many (those who don’t have trouble holding jobs) to the few (those who can’t keep a job). So when you ask, why should anyone be forced to support a baseball stadium, I say, why should anyone be forced to pay into health insurance? And, furthermore, if it is legitimate to get one’s tax money back via unemployment benefits, why not get one’s money back by getting the city to build your ballpark for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

E. Mathis:

I’ve cleared up my thinking on this a bit and it seems to me that the nature of the unemployment insurance programs that are funded by FUTA and SUTA is an important factor to consider when deciding whether taking money from them is moral. As with any form of insurance, you may never use it, or you may find it necessary to draw out benefits that exceed the premiums you've paid.

In many ways unemployment insurance is analogous to auto insurance in my state. We have a no-fault insurance program and the State of Michigan requires everyone to purchase auto insurance. You risk going to jail if you are caught driving without insurance. The state government also skims part of the premium off the top and puts it into a fund specifically designed to pay for people who suffer catastrophic injuries in auto accidents. Given that the government forces me to pay the auto insurance premiums (the same way it forces me to pay for unemployment insurance), would it be morally wrong to accept money from the insurance company if I were in a car crash? If I received horrible injuries in the crash, would it be morally wrong to accept compensation from the state sponsored and controlled catastrophic accident fund? I think the answer to both of these questions is no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many ways unemployment insurance is analogous to auto insurance in my state.  We have a no-fault insurance program and the State of Michigan requires everyone to purchase auto insurance.  You risk going to jail if you are caught driving without insurance.  The state government also skims part of the premium off the top and puts it into a fund specifically designed to pay for people who suffer catastrophic injuries in auto accidents.  Given that the government forces me to pay the auto insurance premiums (the same way it forces me to pay for unemployment insurance), would it be morally wrong to accept money from the insurance company if I were in a car crash?  If I received horrible injuries in the crash, would it be morally wrong to accept compensation from the state sponsored and controlled catastrophic accident fund?  I think the answer to both of these questions is no.

I have not taken the position that it is immoral to accept funds from the government under any circumstances. My only point here is to question why receiving a government handout can be legitimate in one case but not in the other. I have shown that the unemployment tax is ultimately a coercive wealth redistribution scheme, no different in principle than taxing the population to provide income for artists. On the other hand, there are some important distinctions to be made between unemployment insurance and auto insurance. First of all, the auto policyholder makes a contract with a private sector agency. Yes, states do force drivers to carry insurance, but no state forces anyone to go into the insurance business. Auto insurance premiums are based on one’s driving record. Unlike the worker who frequently loses his job but pays the same FUTA rate as everybody else, poor drivers pay rates many times those of good drivers -- and some are not able to find anyone to insure them at any rate. So it is far from clear that auto insurance constitutes a form of socialistic wealth transfer.

But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that auto insurance is just as coercive and unjust as unemployment insurance. We still have not arrived at a reason why a victim of past government taxation should not avail himself of a government subsidy. If the principle is that one should be able to take out what he has put in, then there is nothing that can be said against the subsidized artist or baseball team owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In TVOR, Rand wrote: "The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism"."

In other words then, it's the state of mind that determines whether or not this act is morally justified. Objectively, of course, there is no difference between a parasite taking public money or an Objectivist taking public money

One unavoidable result of a mixed economy is that people are forced into conflicts with each other. A manufacturer is forced to pay a higher-than-market price for goods bought and sometimes forced to sell at a higher-than-market price to his customers. People in one county are forced to subsidize a highway passing through another county. People in one city are forced to subsidize schools in another city.

The difference between the Objectivist and the bum is that the Objectivist does not want the system and even fights against it to the best of his ability. Even though in one particular instance an Objectivist may appear like the beneficiary, when one looks at his entire life, it is completely the opposite. The Objectivist is not a moocher.

There is a broader point to be made here. When Ayn Rand says that "he regards it as restitution", she is not talking only about a "state of mind". If one truly regards this as resitution, that implies that your life, and your actions demonstrate it ... in other words, you are not a bum. The bum is the reason Social Security exists in the first place: he is the problem, and the Objectivist is the solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between the Objectivist and the bum is that the Objectivist does not want the system and even fights against it to the best of his ability. Even though in one particular instance an Objectivist may appear like the beneficiary, when one looks at his entire life, it is completely the opposite. The Objectivist is not a moocher.

I see. The Objectivist is morally justified in taking government benefits because he "does not want the system and even fights against it to the best of his ability." I'm wondering: what degree of fighting the system earns one a share of government benefits? Would my vote for a tax-cut-promising Republican candidate entitle me to a federal farm subsidy? Or would I have to work harder for it by, say, putting up an Objectivist web site, or sending free copies of Atlas Shrugged to my neighbors, or picketing the UN?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not taken the position that it is immoral to accept funds from the government under any circumstances.  My only point here is to question why receiving a government handout can be legitimate in one case but not in the other.  I have shown that the unemployment tax is ultimately a coercive wealth redistribution scheme, no different in principle than taxing the population to provide income for artists.

Yes, the unemployment tax is ultimately a wealth redistribution scheme. However, it is also different from general taxation in that it is essentially an insurance premium (or a user fee) paid to participate in the unemployment insurance system. Is it taken at the point of a gun? Sure it is. However, one pays the premium to receive a specific benefit in the event of a specific occurrence (the loss of employment). If you don’t work and pay a dedicated tax that funds the unemployment insurance system, you can’t collect unemployment benefits. Also, if you’re self-employed, you still pay income tax but likely do not pay the unemployment tax. In that case you can’t receive unemployment benefits. We’re talking about a specific system set up for employed persons who pay a specific tax to support certain benefits, not a general tax being used for whatever the politicians choose.

Nevertheless, I suppose that in some ways taking these benefits is only different from looting the general tax fund (through NEA grants and Stadium Subsidies) by a matter of degree and not principal. However, the issue of the degree of evil is important here. This gets back to a point I made earlier, which is that with the size and scope of our current government, one could hardly step outside and drive down the street without being the beneficiary of a government wealth distribution scheme. Are we all tainted by the current system of taxation and wealth redistribution? Hell yes, it’s impossible to not be tainted.

On the other hand, there are some important distinctions to be made between unemployment insurance and auto insurance.  First of all, the auto policyholder makes a contract with a private sector agency.  Yes, states do force drivers to carry insurance, but no state forces anyone to go into the insurance business.  Auto insurance premiums are based on one’s driving record.  Unlike the worker who frequently loses his job but pays the same FUTA rate as everybody else, poor drivers pay rates many times those of good drivers -- and some are not able to find anyone to insure them at any rate. So it is far from clear that auto insurance constitutes a form of socialistic wealth transfer. 

The distinctions may not be that great. Of course nobody is forced to go into the auto insurance business. However, we are forced to pay auto premiums if we drive, the same way we are forced to pay unemployment insurance premiums if we work. Also, the insurance business is heavily regulated in most states. In Michigan, there are all sorts of controls on the companies operating in our market. This isn’t an important point, but I believe that the ins. companies are forced to offer minimum policies at regulated premiums to every driver. So your point that the premium is based on your driving record is true only to a degree. Bad drivers who couldn’t get any policy in an unregulated market are able to get minimum policies in Michigan. Although the coverage on these minimum policies is bad, the effect is still the same. The good drivers are subsidizing the bad the same way people who lose their jobs often are subsidizing those of us who remain employed.

But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that auto insurance is just as coercive and unjust as unemployment insurance.  We still have not arrived at a reason why a victim of past government taxation should not avail himself of a government subsidy.  If the principle is that one should be able to take out what he has put in, then there is nothing that can be said against the subsidized artist or baseball team owner.

Again I come back to the fact that we’re all tainted by the current system, so it really does become something of a matter of degree. In the case of unemployment, I’m taking money from a system that is admittedly redistributionist, however, I also paid directly for those benefits. By my calculations, the NEA receives approximately .005% of the total amount of the current $2.7 trillion federal budget. Therefore, an artist paying $50,000 per year (which would be a lot for an artist) in Federal Income Tax would have paid all of about $2.50 toward the NEA’s budget. If the artist pays taxes for the next 10,000 years, he’ll have contributed enough into the system to take out a $25,000 NEA grant.

This clearly isn’t a principled argument that I’m making, but it is a practical one in a system where we’ve turned everyone into a thief.

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...