|
jrodefeld posted:I intend to return to the minimum wage but regarding that particular article, I don't have any particular strong reactions one way or another. You have to understand first and foremost that libertarians are not central planners. Stefan Molyneux is just giving one possible solution to a few of societies problems in the absence of the State. Mr Molyneux, myself nor any other libertarian will have any power to force any particular vision of society on anyone else, apart from our moral admonition that the initiation of force is illegitimate and should be prohibited. That is a lot of words but honestly not a lot of answers. I asked you a question and I'll repeat it again: "I'd also like to hear your opinion on whether you still believe that this orwellian hellscape is a fair example of your principles in action?" You'll note that I ask whether you still believe this. Back in... I believe it was November of last year you posted a thread wherein you explicitly endorsed this particular proposal as a possible example of how DRO's might function in a hypothetical society. Were the thread not gassed as a result of your ban I would happily go back and quote you giving a full throated defense of this exact piece. The reason I'm still harping on this rather than letting it go is that your caginess on the subject is deeply disturbing, much like your opinions on Hans Hermann Hoppe. When I see something written by a liberal that is deeply flawed or offensive in some way, I do not generally feel the need to hedge my words when giving a condemnation of a stupid idea. And make no mistake, Mr. Molyneux's idea here is a stupid, stupid idea. It would not function in practice and is far, far more intrusive to any idea of liberty than the state that you seem to think is so bad. So do you think that this is a stupid idea, Yes or no? Has the discussion about it pointed out to you just how utterly flawed it is to the point that you are willing to say that it is not feasible, yes or no? And while I'm at it, do you still follow Mr. Molyneux was one of your libertarian thinkers? Do his recent interactions with the Men's Rights Advocate movement and associated mysogony cause you to rethink any of his previous work? I know you weren't swayed when it was pointed out that he was a cult leader, but does it bother you that he says something like this: quote:“If you don’t have a husband, if you chose the wrong guy, to keep the child is abusive, almost always." quote:“Women who choose the arseholes will loving end this race. They will loving end this human race if we don’t start holding them a-loving-countable…They’re the gatekeepers. Look, women who choose aresholes guarantee child abuse. Women who chose arseholes guarantee criminality, sociopathy, politicians; all the cold hearted jerks who run the world came out of the vaginas of women who married arseholes.  As far as I'm concerned anyone who says things like that about women on a nearly daily basis is intellectually bankrupt, but I'm honestly curious if it even registers that one of the big modern libertarian philosophers is an unabashed misogynist. At what point does it bother you that the people you support hold sickening personal beliefs like this. Caros fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Oct 2, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Mr Molyneux, myself nor any other libertarian will have any power to force any particular vision of society on anyone else, apart from our moral admonition that the initiation of force is illegitimate and should be prohibited. This is nuts. You (an-caps, collectively) aim to attain sufficient power to abolish the state, which is itself intrinsically an act of "[forcing a] particular vision of society" on everyone else. If you have the power to bring about your glorious revolution, how will you simultaneously be powerless to impose your will in other ways?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I can't get over this claim that people can only wage war due to fiat currency and taxation. The whole idea is just so insane. I wonder if anyone ever bothered to tell pre-history societies that their tribal wars were impossible? Let me clarify that statement. What I meant by "war" is a large scale, sustainable and profitable enterprise as it is currently understood. One of the most common objections to market anarchism is the erroneous notion that private defense contractors will wage war on one another and this will disintegrate society into tribal warfare with no order whatsoever. That is what I am rejecting. I am saying that these private competing firms that are to provide order and security will have every incentive to prevent conflict with one another if they are interested in turning a profit. For society to break down in the way that opponents of anarchism suggest, it would have to be assumed that most, or a significant percentage of private defense agencies and/or dispute resolution organizations will choose to wage war on one another rather than find a peaceful way to coexist with one another will providing their services to their customers. Clearly waging war on other defense agencies would be extremely unprofitable and they would have a strong disincentive to do so. I am not counting any sort of small scale crime racket, or even a larger organized crime entity like the Mafia in my definition of "war". Crime will exist and, indeed, turning to crime can and will be profitable for some people. But, as it is in every society, provided the pillars of society, of law and order are still standing and most people are disincentivized to commit criminal behaviors or all out war with one another, the criminal element can be dealt will as it always has been, but I would argue more effectively and efficiently than in a State monopolized justice system. Also, to go back thousands of years to pre-civilization as a way of refuting a State-less society in 2014 is really absurd. Yes, pre-civilized nomadic tribes would "war" with each other but of course they would all have profited much more had they developed a rudimentary economy with a division of labor. Whether it was evolutionary retardation or whatever, these pre-civilized peoples (at least some of them) were bereft of the benefits of cooperation and civilization. Yet in 2014 when the advantages to civilization and the division of labor are commonly known and experienced routinely, why would people voluntarily forgo the benefits of free exchange and choose a life of perpetual warfare if they have to finance it themselves? Some members of society will choose theft and crime but the incentive for the majority of the most wealthy would be to seek greater profits on the market. I really hope no one is really going to question me on the widely known and accepted link between fiat money and State warfare? For most of recorded history, empires were able to finance their bloodshed through some form of inflation. And the difference in scale between the World Wars, the expansive empire of Rome, the conquests of Napoleon, and the relatively small scale tribal war that you might be able to point to historically is vast. Don't miss the forest for the trees. Don't ignore my central point to quibble about an irrelevancy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Gonna add slightly to my previous post. Here are some of the names of some of the videos Molyneux posted in recent days:quote:Critisim: The Truth about Frozen quote:The Virus of Female Avoidance Responsibility quote:Trapping Men in Fallopian Tubes quote:How to betray your husband quote:Withholding Sex as Infidelity Incidentally 13 out of his last 30 videos are about how women are the cause of all life's problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Oh boy Jrodefeld is back, is he still replying to posts one at a time but conspicuously neglecting to include posts he has no counterargument too in his lineup, because that's my favorite thing about Jrodefeld.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I really hope no one is really going to question me on the widely known and accepted link between fiat money and State warfare? For most of recorded history, empires were able to finance their bloodshed through some form of inflation. Sure, I'll bite. What is the widely known and accepted link between fiat money and State warfare?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
I'm just blow away at how someone can be so delusional to think that namedropping a literal white supremacist and a literal cult leader as support for their position would positively influence the majority of people towards that position. It's like saying eugenics is good, here's some Fritz Lenz and Eugene Fischer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The issue is that libertarians take on a bizarre definition of aggression, a definition that is always shifting to mean whatever is currently convenient. Can you define aggression for us, right now? If I walk onto my neighbor's property without his consent, is that aggression? If he shoots me for aggressively walking across his lawn, is that aggression? What if I was stealing his lawnmower and then he shoots me, is that aggression? What if I was taking back the lawnmower that he stole from me and then he shot me, is that aggression? Who is aggressing who in each scenario? In the first place the libertarian definition of "aggression" is NOT always changing. It is in fact articulated quite clearly. Aggression is the act of initiating an act of invasion against the person or property of another without his or her permission. Pretty clear right? We believe in self ownership in the individual. This means of course that each individual has the right to determine the use of his or her physical body with the caveat of course that your use of your body cannot violate the equal rights of anyone else. I would bet that you accept this in every aspect of your life. We extend the principle of non aggression against the physical body of another to the just acquisition of property outside of ones body. If you homestead land by mixing your labor with it, or you trade something you have legitimately acquired with some other item that the seller has legitimately homesteaded or otherwise acquired, those items that you acquire become an extension of your self ownership. Property rights are necessary because we live in a world of conflict. Conflict exists because we live in a world of scarcity. If every desired item existed in superabundance then there would be no need for any property rights outside of our physical bodies since everyone could have anything they wanted. In the real world we need an easy way to avoid conflict. The only way to do that in a world of scarcity is to have a clearly understood system where everyone understands who has jurisdiction and final decision making power over scarce resources. The easier and clearer understood are the property titles and rights to jurisdiction, the less conflict is likely to occur. So just as it would be an act of aggression to invade the borders of a persons physical body (i.e. assault them, rape them, kill them), so too is it an act of aggression to steal or use the property of others without their permission. It is not the same severity of aggression but it still constitutes a rights violation because justly acquired property is an extension of a persons self ownership. There are many cases of minor trespass and technical violations of private property that are accidental or negligible. The key factor is not that you happen to walk across your neighbors lawn, but rather that if your neighbor asks you to leave his property that you listen. The important thing is that the owner of that land has the final say as to its use. If you borrow someones lawnmower without permission you are committed a very minor act of aggression. Can the owner shoot you? No, that would be aggression. Legitimate defensive force must be proportional to the act of aggression otherwise it becomes aggression itself. So, no, unless the property owner fears for his life, he cannot legitimately just start killing people who are walking across his property. It has to be proportional. I don't think this is really that confusing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:I'm just blow away at how someone can be so delusional to think that namedropping a literal white supremacist and a literal cult leader as support for their position would positively influence the majority of people towards that position. Hate to agree but.. I kinda have to. Molyneux is just the worst person to be holding up as your sterling example for anything. Even a not-sterling example. He's the sort of example you want to sweep under the rug into the basement where you keep him in a box far away from the world because every time he opens his mouth someone is walking away pissed the gently caress off at being called a racial slur or a worthless gender. Maybe he should try arguing eugenics instead of libertarianism. That actually has some ground to stand upon if you veer away from the whole "breed the master race" thing and focus on the "let's use genetic manipulation to get rid of fuckawful things like crohn's disease and sickle cell anemia! It'll be great, guy!" But seriously let's not bash too much. Or try not to at least. We are civilized people, god drat it, even if we are goons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Oh my god after years of us arguing with him, he's finally adopted the concept of proportionality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
I won't address this to jrod, because what's the use, but: what's the libertarian position on slavery? If one accepts the principle of self-ownership, do they find anything objectionable in consensually signing a contract in which I bind myself to perpetual servitude to some other interested party?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Caros posted:You realize this is the exact same argument we use to explain to you why people will loving starve or die of preventable illness in your supposed system, right? Like practically word for word. People will vocally support the idea of a social safety net for the poor, or for healthcare for those who can't afford it, but when push comes to shove they won't pay a goddamned dime for it unless they have to. It wouldn't matter because the act of aggression against a peaceful person would be a violation of the non aggression principle. I can totally disabuse you of your claim. In today's society, people assume that it is the State's "job" to look after the poor and provide healthcare to the elderly. They overwhelmingly support support the need to provide care and assistance to the needy. The reason this is clear is that politicians run on platforms that emphasize the supposed "charity" role of the State, to provide assistance to the poor, food stamps, healthcare to the elderly and education to the young. If this was not a genuine concern of the electorate, politicians wouldn't emphasize these issues as they do. Even given that the State taxes people at high rates (usually 30-50% when all tax rates are combined) under the pretext of providing social services to those that need them, Americans still give more to charities than any other population on the face of the earth. This article states that in 2013, we set a record for total charitable donations: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/13/business/la-fi-mo-charitable-donations-record-2013-americans-20140113 The total given was $368.8 billion. Would not we expect this number to rise if people did not expect the State to supposedly provide all these benefits to people? The notion that people would not lift a finger to help the needy, the sick and the impoverished is contradicted by all the relevant data and statistics on charitable donations and volunteer work. If you couple this demonstrated desire by the American people to help others with the natural and documented tendency for the free market economy to steadily reduce poverty and provide greater and greater levels of prosperity year after year, then your fear of what will become of the vulnerable without the State is shown to be wholly without merit. It has been well documented that poverty statistics had dropped steadily and substantially every decade until the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson instituted his Great Society programs and "war on poverty". Poverty continued to decline at the exact same rate for another five years or so and it has stagnated ever since. How are we getting value for the trillions of dollars the US government is spending on "help" for the poor? It doesn't take a genius to see clearly that politicians are bribing people for votes pure and simply. If you break someones legs and then give them a crutch to hobble around on, you haven't really helped them in the aggregate. Yes any transition away from government assistance would be tricky given the numbers that have become dependent but the historical record does NOT support the contention that an alternative market-based system would not benefit the poor and needy once established.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Social security alone is twice the total of donations so nope sorry not going to work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I won't address this to jrod, because what's the use, but: what's the libertarian position on slavery? If one accepts the principle of self-ownership, do they find anything objectionable in consensually signing a contract in which I bind myself to perpetual servitude to some other interested party? It varies. The honest ones accept the logical possibility of selling oneself, even if they don't like it. Others can't handle it and so carve out an exception involving special pleading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:"Well if Christians start imprisoning sinners under my system thats okay and not hosed up in the extreme because it'll be expensive for them" -jrodefeld Don't put words into my mouth. I NEVER said that. It's called the loving non aggression principle for a reason. It cannot EVER be legitimate to initiate violence. I was just contrasting the willingness of people to theoretically fund such an exercise of enforcing victimless crimes if such people had to fund the effort out of their own pockets in comparison to the current US system which does precisely what you fear MIGHT happen in a Stateless society! Honestly, you REALLY think private individuals would want to fund the War on Drugs or an equivalent program if they had to bear the costs entirely themselves? The answer is obvious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Okay, I've got like a halfhour before I have to sleep, so lets do this.jrodefeld posted:In the first place the libertarian definition of "aggression" is NOT always changing. It is in fact articulated quite clearly. Aggression is the act of initiating an act of invasion against the person or property of another without his or her permission. Pretty clear right? I actually agree with you that your definition of aggression is fairly stable. It bears little to no relationship to what normal people actually use that word for, but I can't fault you for using the lingo of your peers. That said I don't think what is and is not aggression is all that clear cut, as I'll go into. quote:We believe in self ownership in the individual. This means of course that each individual has the right to determine the use of his or her physical body with the caveat of course that your use of your body cannot violate the equal rights of anyone else. I would bet that you accept this in every aspect of your life. You would bet wrong. I don't believe in self-ownership because I don't consider myself to be loving property, nor do I feel I must boil down every interaction of human beings to some weird version of property rights as someone like Murray Rothbard must. I don't 'own' myself, I simply am. I will however agree that I can more or less do whatever I want within the existing laws and regulations set out by society. If you think DRO's wouldn't restrict you from doing things that you want to do that might harm other people, boy do you have another thing coming. quote:We extend the principle of non aggression against the physical body of another to the just acquisition of property outside of ones body. If you homestead land by mixing your labor with it, or you trade something you have legitimately acquired with some other item that the seller has legitimately homesteaded or otherwise acquired, those items that you acquire become an extension of your self ownership. This is probably the first really big separation from standard thought and it bears repeating. Your theory of property is not one shared by others, nor is it universally provable in any meaningful sense. The very fact that it is not the method used by... really by any human interaction speaks to the fact that it is possible to develop a society that does not follow this logic. Since this is not universal nor is it necessarily anymore moral than another system, such as the one we currently have, your job isn't merely to explain it and call it a day but to try and explain why we should want to use this system that most people view as clearly inferior. quote:Property rights are necessary because we live in a world of conflict. Conflict exists because we live in a world of scarcity. If every desired item existed in superabundance then there would be no need for any property rights outside of our physical bodies since everyone could have anything they wanted. In the real world we need an easy way to avoid conflict. The only way to do that in a world of scarcity is to have a clearly understood system where everyone understands who has jurisdiction and final decision making power over scarce resources. The easier and clearer understood are the property titles and rights to jurisdiction, the less conflict is likely to occur. I agree that we needed an easy way to decide who owns what, this is why we developed property rights. You'll note I say 'developed' because of course property rights are not some universal creation. They are not some fundamental immutable law, they are simply something the hairless monkeys made up to determine who gets to keep what. I'm glad we agree on everything except self-ownership which I think is dumb. Hell, here is a difference for you. Why can't I sell myself? I can sell literally anything else in my entire home, permanently transferring legal control over it to someone else, but I cannot sell myself. Because there is no legal concept of self-ownership, because there doesn't need to be since it is a pointless distinction. quote:So just as it would be an act of aggression to invade the borders of a persons physical body (i.e. assault them, rape them, kill them), so too is it an act of aggression to steal or use the property of others without their permission. It is not the same severity of aggression but it still constitutes a rights violation because justly acquired property is an extension of a persons self ownership. I have borders now? This is like that loving Oglaf Comic where the state of the Ambassador wishes to enter 'relations' with the principality of the apprentice. Except with slightly less gay sex. There are many cases of minor trespass and technical violations of private property that are accidental or negligible. The key factor is not that you happen to walk across your neighbors lawn, but rather that if your neighbor asks you to leave his property that you listen. The important thing is that the owner of that land has the final say as to its use. quote:If you borrow someones lawnmower without permission you are committed a very minor act of aggression. Can the owner shoot you? No, that would be aggression. Legitimate defensive force must be proportional to the act of aggression otherwise it becomes aggression itself. So, no, unless the property owner fears for his life, he cannot legitimately just start killing people who are walking across his property. It has to be proportional. Now here is a fun game for you JRodefeld, how do you determine the 'severity' of aggression against something other than the physical body, and more importantly, what is an appropriate level of defensive force when it comes to defending property? And who decides that? Determining self-defense is easy when you're talking about actual 'force' because that is really simple to judge. Someone comes at you with their fists, you can use fists, a weapon meets a weapon and so forth. But what is the proportional response to me walking onto your lawn and refusing to leave? That is a hell of a lot more difficult to figure out. You know what, I could go on but its late and I'm tired. I'm curious to read your critique on this, I'm sure it will be scathing: quote:Right-Libertarians, “Anarcho”-Capitalists, and assorted propertarians very frequently cite the Non-Aggression principle or Zero Aggression principle (Commonly called NAP or ZAP) as a core tenet of their ideology. It is brought up as the building block of voluntaryism on which free markets can be built and proudly displayed to show how morally superior such a society would be compared to anything else which, by the absence of the NAP, is defined to have an involuntary aspect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:It varies. The honest ones accept the logical possibility of selling oneself, even if they don't like it. Others can't handle it and so carve out an exception involving special pleading. It's the first question that always comes to my head whenever someone mentions self-ownership, because either you need additional assumptions about the nature of that ownership right from the beginning, or large-scale slavery is back on the table. It would be easy to imagine the father of a starving family with sick children "consensually" signing up for slavery so that his kids got food and medicine. Hell, in Libertopia I'd expect slave tourism to be big business.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Don't put words into my mouth. I NEVER said that. It's called the loving non aggression principle for a reason. It cannot EVER be legitimate to initiate violence. I was just contrasting the willingness of people to theoretically fund such an exercise of enforcing victimless crimes if such people had to fund the effort out of their own pockets in comparison to the current US system which does precisely what you fear MIGHT happen in a Stateless society! The KKK took up the fight against black people and immigrants totally on their own dime, and today far right militias hang out along the border to keep brown people out of America, again on their own dime, so I'd say the answer is obviously yeah. Maybe not the war on drugs specifically, but those far right militias aren't just going to evaporate when Libertopia happens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Let me clarify that statement. What I meant by "war" is a large scale, sustainable and profitable enterprise as it is currently understood. One of the most common objections to market anarchism is the erroneous notion that private defense contractors will wage war on one another and this will disintegrate society into tribal warfare with no order whatsoever. That is what I am rejecting. I am saying that these private competing firms that are to provide order and security will have every incentive to prevent conflict with one another if they are interested in turning a profit. For society to break down in the way that opponents of anarchism suggest, it would have to be assumed that most, or a significant percentage of private defense agencies and/or dispute resolution organizations will choose to wage war on one another rather than find a peaceful way to coexist with one another will providing their services to their customers. Clearly waging war on other defense agencies would be extremely unprofitable and they would have a strong disincentive to do so. Yes, it would be highly unprofitable for two organizations to go to outright war with each other. However, even more than peace, the much MORE profitable result is a carefully negotiated cold war between them, a collusion to pretend to be about to attack each other. They get to motivate paranoia in their citizens, which they can use to milk for all the money and exploitation of the terrified citizenry possible, all the while completely avoiding the need to actually fight or risk anything. Heck, it doesn't even have to be two organizations. A single one can just flat out MAKE UP an enemy. jrodefeld posted:Honestly, you REALLY think private individuals would want to fund the War on Drugs or an equivalent program if they had to bear the costs entirely themselves? YES. Yes, I absolutely, unequivocally do. Except it wouldn't be the war on drugs. It would be against gays, or black people, or people of different religions. Do you honestly think that there aren't some organizations in this world who outright loathe and despise another group to the point where they'd want them exterminated, beyond all reason or logic?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Let me clarify that statement. What I meant by "war" is a large scale, sustainable and profitable enterprise as it is currently understood. In other words, your definition of war only includes the enormous types of actions that have taken place in the last century, rather than small-scale conflicts that have occurred throughout human history. Gotcha. So when you say "anarcho libertarnism prevents war" what you really mean to say is "anarcho libertarianism prevents a very specific kind of war, one which requires resources on the continental level to wage" This is the kind of absurd redefining of terms that people keep talking about, jrod. quote:One of the most common objections to market anarchism is the erroneous notion that private defense contractors will wage war on one another and this will disintegrate society into tribal warfare with no order whatsoever. That is what I am rejecting. I am saying that these private competing firms that are to provide order and security will have every incentive to prevent conflict with one another if they are interested in turning a profit. For society to break down in the way that opponents of anarchism suggest, it would have to be assumed that most, or a significant percentage of private defense agencies and/or dispute resolution organizations will choose to wage war on one another rather than find a peaceful way to coexist with one another will providing their services to their customers. Clearly waging war on other defense agencies would be extremely unprofitable and they would have a strong disincentive to do so. You haven't provided a convincing argument for this proposition. War, throughout history, even on a small scale, is profitable. Your rejection of this fact does not make it any less true. Invading a wealthy but poorly armed state with a well-armed force is a profitable venture. This has happened a seemingly infinite number of times, with and without states, with and without currencies, with and without taxation. There are countless examples of this, where small-scale conflict took place despite the lack of a large tax base or fiat currency to support it. We know of ancient Polynesian societies, where war requires an oceanic voyage on loving canoes, waging war with each other for land and plunder. You are completely wrong on this. quote:I am not counting any sort of small scale crime racket, or even a larger organized crime entity like the Mafia in my definition of "war". Crime will exist and, indeed, turning to crime can and will be profitable for some people. But, as it is in every society, provided the pillars of society, of law and order are still standing and most people are disincentivized to commit criminal behaviors or all out war with one another, the criminal element can be dealt will as it always has been, but I would argue more effectively and efficiently than in a State monopolized justice system. Neither am I, but now that you bring it up, it seems pretty absurd to ignore crime rackets and gang warfare. Gangs are known to take territory from each other for profit-based reasons, and they do this despite state-imposed disincentives. In an ancap free market society, those state-imposed disincentives would be eliminated, leading to even more war. Even if gangs were members of DROs and decided to impose disincentives on themselves for whatever reason, they would still go to war quote:Also, to go back thousands of years to pre-civilization as a way of refuting a State-less society in 2014 is really absurd. Yes, pre-civilized nomadic tribes would "war" with each other but of course they would all have profited much more had they developed a rudimentary economy with a division of labor. Whether it was evolutionary retardation or whatever, these pre-civilized peoples (at least some of them) were bereft of the benefits of cooperation and civilization. Hmm, it's almost as though people don't always act in their rational self-interest. There are people today, in 2014 engaged in small-scale warfare with each other despite the enlightenment brought about by cooperation and civilization. They actually will cooperate with each other to inflict war on others. Such a marvel! quote:Yet in 2014 when the advantages to civilization and the division of labor are commonly known and experienced routinely, why would people voluntarily forgo the benefits of free exchange and choose a life of perpetual warfare if they have to finance it themselves? Some members of society will choose theft and crime but the incentive for the majority of the most wealthy would be to seek greater profits on the market. Becomes sometimes warfare is profitable as gently caress. If you receive returns on that investment and you aren't morally opposed to war, as many people aren't, then of course you're going to be willing to finance it. quote:I really hope no one is really going to question me on the widely known and accepted link between fiat money and State warfare? For most of recorded history, empires were able to finance their bloodshed through some form of inflation. And the difference in scale between the World Wars, the expansive empire of Rome, the conquests of Napoleon, and the relatively small scale tribal war that you might be able to point to historically is vast. And for most of recorded history and pre-history, war was inflicted without the existence of fiat money. I'm sorry to inform you that people can wage war without fiat money. This must be a sad realization for you. quote:Don't miss the forest for the trees. Don't ignore my central point to quibble about an irrelevancy. What's the irrelevancy here? You've claimed that war would end in the absence of fiat currency and taxation. The loving Mongolians didn't have either of these things when they unified central Asia and waged war on China (they developed paper money and taxation after that). The motherfucking Aztecs didn't have fiat currency, and they only inflicted taxes on the people that they conquered. You're claiming that world war wouldn't occur without fiat currency or taxation, but you have nothing but worthless platitudes to back this up. And furthermore, what the gently caress prevents a DRO from printing its own money? Nothing, in ancap utopia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We extend the principle of non aggression against the physical body of another to the just acquisition of property outside of ones body. If you homestead land by mixing your labor with it, or you trade something you have legitimately acquired with some other item that the seller has legitimately homesteaded or otherwise acquired, those items that you acquire become an extension of your self ownership. There are different types of property: private, personal, intellectual, public, intangible and tangible. Across cultures, the concepts of personal and public property are more common than private. That you jump the gap from personal ownership to private property, while pretending that all other forms of property are irrelevant or non-existent, is an unsubstantiated assumption. Why should I believe that kind of lovely logic. Karia posted:Yes, it would be highly unprofitable for two organizations to go to outright war with each other. However, even more than peace, the much MORE profitable result is a carefully negotiated cold war between them, a collusion to pretend to be about to attack each other. They get to motivate paranoia in their citizens, which they can use to milk for all the money and exploitation of the terrified citizenry possible, all the while completely avoiding the need to actually fight or risk anything. Heck, it doesn't even have to be two organizations. A single one can just flat out MAKE UP an enemy. Medieval Europe made extensive use of mercenary armies, and it was not uncommon for opposing mercenary forces to dance back and forth, threatening but never quite forcing battle, milking their employers for as long as possible. Italy had some good examples, as the city states there were rich and needed mercenaries due to lack of manpower. Who knew that people that are paid to fight, with no state loyalty, like nothing more than getting paid and living to spend that money. Battles are messy and being dead is no fun. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:Okay here's a question for you liberies- what am I supposed to do? Me personally. Let me respond in complete honesty and without being condescending. That is really tough. I haven't said this to anyone on this forum, but I have been suffering from some fairly serious medical problems myself. I'm only 29 yet I've had enough problems over the past decade that has limited my ability to work at times. Luckily I'm expected to make a recovery but you don't have to tell me how difficult it is to deal with poor health and the problems that can arise from just bad luck. I'm more fortunate than many and I make a lot of my money working online with my own business and on side projects. I also work part time in a "real" job so I'm getting by. But I'm not the sort that some of you might imagine, a privileged rich kid who never knew hardship. It is quite the contrary. I honestly believe that the State has altered our society in such profound ways. One way is that we have been trained to look to politicians and social workers rather than our community for help when we get hurt or have problems. We live more isolated lives when in the past we would have lived in more tight-knit communities. I would suspect that newer, social-media using mutual aid societies would spring up where communities of people would work together in social clubs to provide aid and assistance to each other in times of hardship. Such "friendly societies" (as they were also known) existed throughout the late 19th century and into the early 20th. They were quite popular among the poorest of the poor, especially African Americans at a time when racial discrimination was practically an institution in the United States. I believe that is a very good model of how to institute a community where people are genuinely taken care of when they suffer from poor luck. I have heard many stories of sick people using crowd-sourcing ventures like Kickstarter to raise money for needed medical procedures to great success. We have the tools to help one another like we never have before. I just think it is very important to not be paralyzed with fear. That is the States greatest tool to keep the masses in line. You fear what would happen if you didn't have your unemployment, your disability, your foodstamps, whatever. It is really no way to live, to be reliant on an impersonal bureaucracy that sees you as a permanent voting block because you literally cannot survive without them. That is, unfortunately, just how they like it. I could say a great deal about how the State has caused medical costs to soar when medical services would be far cheaper in a free market environment. But I'll leave that for another time. But I want to reiterate that I understand what you are going though. It is no fun at all. Don't lose your dignity, don't give in to fear. We can create a world of mutual aid where communities and social clubs provide aid to the needy rather than some faceless bureaucracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We extend the principle of non aggression against the physical body of another to the just acquisition of property outside of ones body. If you homestead land by mixing your labor with it, or you trade something you have legitimately acquired with some other item that the seller has legitimately homesteaded or otherwise acquired, those items that you acquire become an extension of your self ownership. How about this scenario: I acquire some land by mixing my labor with it. Eventually this generates enough profit that I hire another man to mix his labor with my land for me. Is the land his now, or is it still mine? When, if ever, does it become his land? If I occasionally go onto my land and dig a couple of holes, is that sufficient for me to keep the land that someone else is working? quote:There are many cases of minor trespass and technical violations of private property that are accidental or negligible. The key factor is not that you happen to walk across your neighbors lawn, but rather that if your neighbor asks you to leave his property that you listen. The important thing is that the owner of that land has the final say as to its use. How many times does he have to ask before it becomes a transgression? quote:If you borrow someones lawnmower without permission you are committed a very minor act of aggression. Can the owner shoot you? No, that would be aggression. Legitimate defensive force must be proportional to the act of aggression otherwise it becomes aggression itself. So, no, unless the property owner fears for his life, he cannot legitimately just start killing people who are walking across his property. It has to be proportional. How does one define whether a property owner fears for his life enough? What if he's absolutely terrified of everyone, then is it okay for him to shoot trespassers? What if he's only afraid of black people? If the trespasser hasn't signed a contract with the man's DRO, does it even matter whether or not he was afraid for his life?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Let me clarify that statement. What I meant by "war" is a large scale, sustainable and profitable enterprise as it is currently understood. One of the most common objections to market anarchism is the erroneous notion that private defense contractors will wage war on one another and this will disintegrate society into tribal warfare with no order whatsoever. That is what I am rejecting. I am saying that these private competing firms that are to provide order and security will have every incentive to prevent conflict with one another if they are interested in turning a profit. For society to break down in the way that opponents of anarchism suggest, it would have to be assumed that most, or a significant percentage of private defense agencies and/or dispute resolution organizations will choose to wage war on one another rather than find a peaceful way to coexist with one another will providing their services to their customers. Clearly waging war on other defense agencies would be extremely unprofitable and they would have a strong disincentive to do so. What happens when the ultra wealthy start hiring on defense contractors as standing armies? That seems like it would be the most profitable thing for both parties. There is no reason to assume that the contractors wouldn't always work for the highest bidder, and the highest bidder will always be the ultra wealthy. It still seems like the only thing standing between a libertarian society and absolute tyranny of ultra wealthy is the conscience of mercenaries. This isn't an irrelevancy, it is a fatal flaw with libertarian ideology that undermines the whole thing. Miltank fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:It's the first question that always comes to my head whenever someone mentions self-ownership, because either you need additional assumptions about the nature of that ownership right from the beginning, or large-scale slavery is back on the table. It would be easy to imagine the father of a starving family with sick children "consensually" signing up for slavery so that his kids got food and medicine. Hell, in Libertopia I'd expect slave tourism to be big business. twodot fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Goddamnit, I realy wanted to loving sleep but I can't let this go unanswered.jrodefeld posted:It wouldn't matter because the act of aggression against a peaceful person would be a violation of the non aggression principle. I can totally disabuse you of your claim. In today's society, people assume that it is the State's "job" to look after the poor and provide healthcare to the elderly. They overwhelmingly support support the need to provide care and assistance to the needy. The reason this is clear is that politicians run on platforms that emphasize the supposed "charity" role of the State, to provide assistance to the poor, food stamps, healthcare to the elderly and education to the young. If this was not a genuine concern of the electorate, politicians wouldn't emphasize these issues as they do. Yes, it is the state's job to look after the poor considering 50% of our elderly would be living in poverty without social security or medicare. Does this somehow surprise you that people don't want their grandmothers to have to, as one poster put it, suck-start a shotgun to prevent them ruining their children's lives?$ quote:Even given that the State taxes people at high rates (usually 30-50% when all tax rates are combined) under the pretext of providing social services to those that need them, Americans still give more to charities than any other population on the face of the earth. Even given? The US tax rates are historically low, and there is no pretext about it considering that the US does provide those social services. The US also provides major tax incentives for charitable giving, but I don't see you talking about how that might in fact affect the amount of charitable giving the US handles. quote:The total given was $368.8 billion. Would not we expect this number to rise if people did not expect the State to supposedly provide all these benefits to people? The notion that people would not lift a finger to help the needy, the sick and the impoverished is contradicted by all the relevant data and statistics on charitable donations and volunteer work. Wow! 368.8 Billion?! For the entire world!? I mean, that amount would pay for food stamps alone like... what, four times over? Yeah 80 billion times four, you'd even have some change left over. You know what it wouldn't pay for? quote:Medicaid = $297 Billion Dollars The idea that we are going to replace the programs that we are talking about, programs that run roughly 1.5 Trillion dollars with charity is loving absurd. Like it doesn't even make sense in the most pie in the sky fashion. I mean, lets look at your breakdown there: quote:-- Money for religious causes rose 8.6% in 2013 to $143.1 billion, up from $131.8 billion in 2012. Religious donations as a share of all giving fell from 36% to 35%. So of your 368.8 billion, which accounts for all worldwide US private charity and still only manages to be 1/5 the amount needed for these programs, 35% is garbage. Religious donations will have almost no effect on what we're talking about, it'd be a prince of space moment. Education, while great, doesn't apply to what we're talking about either. So lets be generous and say 50% goes to it. So 184 billion. People would need to devote, on a personal level roughly 10x what they are donating now, without any tax incentives to do so just to break even with the programs that we have now. This is assuming that there would be no massive disadvantage due to losing the economy of scale. It also doesn't account for the fact that charity is the first thing to go when things get tough, which is of course the exact time we need these programs the most. Foodstamps automatically expanded to meet the needs of the people during the 2009 recession, while private charity shrunk. How the gently caress do you think that is going to work. quote:If you couple this demonstrated desire by the American people to help others with the natural and documented tendency for the free market economy to steadily reduce poverty and provide greater and greater levels of prosperity year after year, then your fear of what will become of the vulnerable without the State is shown to be wholly without merit. I agree, if you somehow showed the american public that you could eliminate all government while simultaneously getting them to invest at a minimum 10x as much in charity, despite the fact that you admit they'd be getting back at most 50% of their income (taxes), then yes they might consider it. They may also ask if you are Merlin or Gandalf the Accountant since you appear to be a financial wizard. quote:It has been well documented that poverty statistics had dropped steadily and substantially every decade until the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson instituted his Great Society programs and "war on poverty". Poverty continued to decline at the exact same rate for another five years or so and it has stagnated ever since. How are we getting value for the trillions of dollars the US government is spending on "help" for the poor? This is a bald faced lie. Poverty was at 19% when Lyndon Johnson instituted the great society program and it declined sharply to 11% in the aftermath of his programs, only increasing as the programs were gutted or slashed by people like you who like to pretend that they were having no effect. By every metric the poor in the United States are immeasurably less immiserated today than they were then. And that is only counting the great society programs. As I've pointed out numerous times, Social security decreased poverty among the elderly from 67% to around 10%. It accounts for the full income of 50% of our seniors. Medicare is the sole medical care provider for the elderly (the most at risk group) in the US and it does so at substantially reduced costs from what any private insurer would be able to manage. quote:It doesn't take a genius to see clearly that politicians are bribing people for votes pure and simply. If you break someones legs and then give them a crutch to hobble around on, you haven't really helped them in the aggregate. Yes any transition away from government assistance would be tricky given the numbers that have become dependent but the historical record does NOT support the contention that an alternative market-based system would not benefit the poor and needy once established. It doesn't take a genius to see that people like basic social services. Do you know the favorability rating of Universal Healthcare in Canada, IE. The program that everyone uses? 90%. You'll get the same numbers in most UHC countries, because when you can see a doctor and get cancer treatment without ruining the lives of your entire family that is a good thing. The same is true of nearly and social program that sees widespread use. The elderly love Social Security and Medicare, because those programs do a fantastic job at what they were intended to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Even given that the State taxes people at high rates (usually 30-50% when all tax rates are combined) under the pretext of providing social services to those that need them, Americans still give more to charities than any other population on the face of the earth. You understand that charitable donations are tax deductible, right? What do you think will happen when taxes are abolished? quote:It doesn't take a genius to see clearly that politicians are bribing people for votes pure and simply. If you break someones legs and then give them a crutch to hobble around on, you haven't really helped them in the aggregate. Yes any transition away from government assistance would be tricky given the numbers that have become dependent but the historical record does NOT support the contention that an alternative market-based system would not benefit the poor and needy once established. The issue here is that you haven't established that a free market society would benefit the poor and needy. That's what you need to do. You have a bunch of half-baked ideas and some philosophies that have never really been applicable to the real world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Let me respond in complete honesty and without being condescending. That is really tough. I haven't said this to anyone on this forum, but I have been suffering from some fairly serious medical problems myself. I'm only 29 yet I've had enough problems over the past decade that has limited my ability to work at times. Luckily I'm expected to make a recovery but you don't have to tell me how difficult it is to deal with poor health and the problems that can arise from just bad luck. I'm more fortunate than many and I make a lot of my money working online with my own business and on side projects. I also work part time in a "real" job so I'm getting by. But I'm not the sort that some of you might imagine, a privileged rich kid who never knew hardship. It is quite the contrary. You mean like an insurance company? One that has every incentive to deny you coverage as long as possible because if you die while you are sick then they don't have to pay for poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is, unfortunately, just how they like it. I could say a great deal about how the State has caused medical costs to soar when medical services would be far cheaper in a free market environment. Except that the opposite has proven to be true? The vast bargaining power of the State, when actually leveraged against healthcare costs rather than leaving them to market forces, drives them down. For example; every single-payer system in existence. See also; our heavily privatized healthcare system, one of the most expensive in the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't see the problem with consensual slavery. The system of wages we have now isn't substantially different in that seeking employment can force all sorts of undesired major life decisions. The real question is "What do we do with people who break their slavery contract?". There are certainly horrible answers to this question, but applying our existing rules for contracts (they would have to return the market value of the labor they failed to provide and can discharge that obligation through bankruptcy) seems pretty ok to me. What's your objection to consensual slavery that doesn't apply to existing society? Two people get married, poo poo goes south, both enter a slave contract to survive. One unexpectedly dies or runs. The other one is probably hosed and legally has to assume the remainder. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:This is nuts. You (an-caps, collectively) aim to attain sufficient power to abolish the state, which is itself intrinsically an act of "[forcing a] particular vision of society" on everyone else. If you have the power to bring about your glorious revolution, how will you simultaneously be powerless to impose your will in other ways? I will choose to live in a community of like minded people and I will construct my life in accordance with my values. You should do the same. The ONLY thing I ask is that you refrain from initiating violence against me for following my conscience and minding my own business. If you want to construct a voluntary socialist community where people accept a "leader" who provides social services through voluntary donations, you can do that. You can live in a Marxist community where all workers own the means of production. I wouldn't have anything to do with such a community but I am not going to stop you from living your life how you see fit. What I won't stand for though is you using violence against peaceful individuals. You cannot be permitted to force your values on everyone else. I know this ideological framework runs contrary to a lot of Statist views since they are comprised of central planners. I want to get rid of the State primarily because I don't want to have the power to impose my will on anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't see the problem with consensual slavery. The system of wages we have now isn't substantially different in that seeking employment can force all sorts of undesired major life decisions. The real question is "What do we do with people who break their slavery contract?". There are certainly horrible answers to this question, but applying our existing rules for contracts (they would have to return the market value of the labor they failed to provide and can discharge that obligation through bankruptcy) seems pretty ok to me. What's your objection to consensual slavery that doesn't apply to existing society? My problem with it is that it would very rarely be truly consensual, subject to massive exploitation. Slavery or Starving to Death in my Shallow Grave is not actually a choice, as much as you might think it looks like one. Edit: This is beside the obvious answer of "allowing 'consensual' contractual slavery is insane", of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't see the problem with consensual slavery. The system of wages we have now isn't substantially different in that seeking employment can force all sorts of undesired major life decisions. The real question is "What do we do with people who break their slavery contract?". There are certainly horrible answers to this question, but applying our existing rules for contracts (they would have to return the market value of the labor they failed to provide and can discharge that obligation through bankruptcy) seems pretty ok to me. What's your objection to consensual slavery that doesn't apply to existing society? Where I've written above about consensual slavery, it's best to think of it as "consensual" slavery. This is due to the fact that we're dealing with people who don't believe that economic exploitation exists as long as the parties "consent." I'm thinking you could probably find lots of people in the poorest parts of the world who, faced with the choice of starvation and disease on the one hand, or perpetual bondage on the other, might very well choose the latter. Someone as jrod how many such slaves he would consider as too many in his ideal world
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:Two people get married, poo poo goes south, both enter a slave contract to survive. One unexpectedly dies or runs. The other one is probably hosed and legally has to assume the remainder. Oops. Rhjamiz posted:My problem with it is that it would very rarely be truly consensual, subject to massive exploitation. Slavery or Starving to Death in my Shallow Grave is not actually a choice, as much as you might think it looks like one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I will choose to live in a community of like minded people and I will construct my life in accordance with my values. You should do the same. The ONLY thing I ask is that you refrain from initiating violence against me for following my conscience and minding my own business. If you want to construct a voluntary socialist community where people accept a "leader" who provides social services through voluntary donations, you can do that. You can live in a Marxist community where all workers own the means of production. I wouldn't have anything to do with such a community but I am not going to stop you from living your life how you see fit. Ah yes, the 7% of people who are Libertarians above any other position (the pure ones). Sure, they're ~95% white and sure, they oddly have an unusually high percentage of neo-Confederates and white supremacists in prominent positions, but Libertarianism totally isn't gonna be used to resWE MUST SECURE THE EXISTENCE OF OUR PEOPLE AND A FUTURE FOR WHITE CHILDREN. *minorities collectively shake their heads*
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, so the other spouse files bankruptcy and moves on with their life. How is that any different from "both get into unwise amounts of debt" in our current society? Not all debts are discharged if a spouse dies or files bankruptcy. Probably one of the areas where existing law would have to be clarified. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, so the other spouse files bankruptcy and moves on with their life. How is that any different from "both get into unwise amounts of debt" in our current society? There is no sane way to deal with it. You are returned to your owners and they can deal with you as they see fit. I feel like you are not fully grasping what it means to be a slave. You cease to be a person, you become property. Nevermind why the married couple didn't file for bankruptcy in the first place instead of becoming slaves, the person or company who owned the living spouse would simply not allow their property to file for bankruptcy. You would literally be owned by a person or company.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Jrod do you assert that the Mexican-American war was not massively profitable for the United States?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:There is no sane way to deal with it. You are returned to your owners and they can deal with you as they see fit. I feel like you are not fully grasping what it means to be a slave. You cease to be a person, you become property. Nevermind why the married couple didn't file for bankruptcy in the first place instead of becoming slaves, the person or company who owned the living spouse would simply not allow their property to file for bankruptcy. You would literally be owned by a person or company. edit: I like having states, but the point here is the system of slavery as you describe it can only exist in a state that has specifically protected slavery as an activity different from normal contracts. twodot fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:51 |
|
|
Caros posted:That is a lot of words but honestly not a lot of answers. I asked you a question and I'll repeat it again: I think this habit you have of picking out choice exerpts of writings from various libertarians and making me answer for the opinions of others is an immature debate tactic. Do you have any idea of the shear volume of material that Stefan Molyneux has written and recorded over the years? He has thousands and thousands of several hour long podcasts and call in shows speaking on every topic imaginable, both related to libertarianism and unrelated. If I list him as an influence, am I honestly supposed to answer or agree with everything he ever said? Or if not, do you really think I should be wasting my time publicly vociferously denouncing every word another prominent libertarian writes that I disagree with so I can be super politically correct in front of my leftist friends? I find Molyneux interesting. I agree with him on some things and I disagree on others. He has done a great amount of good overall getting people to think about philosophy and anarchy but I disagree with him on plenty of issues. I don't believe for a second that he is a misogynist. He has criticized women in particular in recent years because he puts a lot of emphasis on the importance of raising children peacefully. He personally was abused as a child and he has done a lot of working on the value of not spanking your children and raising them in a responsible way. Since woman typically have the role of child rearing in society and they are the ones who disproportionately hit their children, he is critical of those that do. This doesn't mean that he "hates women". He has been extremely critical of men who beat their children and who don't support their families. But he believes that society has given women a pass and not held them to account in their monumental role in shaping the next generation. Whether you agree or disagree, you have to understand the context. Even IF Molyneux is a misogynist and cult leader and Hoppe is a racist, that still does nothing to disprove the validity of the non-aggression principle or libertarian theory. It is the ideas that I am concerned with. I follow a great number of libertarian thinkers, including but not limited to the following: Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Ron Paul, Stefan Molyneux, Hans Hoppe, Gary Chartier, Tom Woods, Lysander Spooner, Frederic Bastiat, Murray Rothbard, Stephan Kinsella, Scott Horton, Albert Jay Knock, Robert Nozick, Benjamin Tucker, Robert Murphy, Jacob Hornberger, Sheldon Richman, Will Grigg. There are too many more to list. I also have strong affection for the civil libertarian and antiwar liberal journalists, especially Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill. I agree with all of these people on at least 50% of what they write and say. Do you honestly want me to waste my time publicly denouncing the views of those I disagree with just for your benefit? It serves no purpose to me. They all are serious thinkers who have contributed a great deal. If one of them makes a bad argument then I am not afraid to say so. As when Rothbard failed to extend the non aggression principle to children in The Ethics of Liberty. He was wrong in that case and I am not afraid to point that out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:53
|
|