|
Sublimer posted:Out of these types of libertarians, which ones typically support (And supported before it was politically acceptable) gay marriage? I'm pretty sure the libertarian conservatives just want to leave it up to the states to decide, but I'm not sure about the others. Most libertarians do not believe marriage should exist as a legal construct. So, in a post-libertarian-revolution world it would be a nonissue and gay couples could live just as straight couples do with nobody ever actually marrying. Presumably this works until you accidentally cross the property of Westboro Baptist Freedom and Liberty Land and get shot. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 15:07 on May 24, 2014 |
#
¿
May 24, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Speaking of Milton Friedman, is there a reason people like Ron and Rand Paul love this guy? Sure, he was a really conservative economist, but isn't his biggest claim to fame that he advocated for a really active Federal Reserve, something that Ron/Rand want to completely abolish? Is this just another one of those Reagan/Jesus instances where conservatives admire someone but they have no idea what they've actually done? Friedman is a libertarian hero in general, not just a Paul one. He ranks up with Hayek, von Mises, etc. in their list of saints and is constantly brought up as the authority on why Keynes was a bad bad man, and why FDR was literally Satan for behaving according to Keynesian principles. Most of the adoration comes from his work "proving" that the New Deal did not alleviate the Depression and his close association with Pinochet's regime, but literally anything Friedman ever said might as well be scripture to the libertarians that aren't really ready to go all in on ancap economics. Edit: I think his popularity has died down some since 2008 though. Friedman's work is favored by moderate libertarians because it both is and isn't Keynesian, allowing them to feel contrarian without actually advocating a massive upheaval of property rights. There are fewer of those around since cold hard economic reality has driven most of them to either see reality or burrow really deep into the crazy. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
ProfessorCurly posted:This is one of those things that really bugs me. Cards on the table I'm quite a fan of Friedman and his work, but this is not what he said at all. Well, it is but the 'why' is very important here - the New Deal had lots of moving parts and some of them worked contrary to one another. Public works projects to get people employed and out of poverty, coupled with excised taxes on electricity, gasoline and other goods which fell mostly on the working class sort of cancelled each other out. As I recall, he viewed the parts of the New Deal that were essentially "Stop people from starving in the street" as a success and entirely necessary, it's just the economic policies within the new deal were often counterproductive, giving with one hand and taking away with the other (often through regressive taxes that hurt the working man even more disproportionately). Oh, I know that there is more detail to his analysis than the libertarians present. I never said that the libertarians were using his words honestly, did I? Friedman has been canonized and sanitized for libertarian consumption in many of their publications.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:The thrust would be, psychiatric drug research has cost many billions of dollars since the 1950's. Would that have been better spent on basic cog sci research on the nature of consciousness? How about just half? Would half of our psychiatric drugs be a reasonable cost for the potential of a big breakthrough in understanding brain structure? Yes, maybe? Those drugs were just a potential good too, once. Maybe the resources devoted that way could have developed a deep-brain stimulation revolution that resulted in implants that would tweak every facet of the brain that the drugs do. Or it could have been a bust - but nobody knew the drugs wouldn't be, and most drugs flame out spectacularly for one or another reason during research. Plus, many of those drugs could have never been conceived of without the basic research into neurotransmitters, brain structure, etc. that allowed pharma researchers to intelligently pursue drugs which target specific systems in specific ways. Neuroscience is one of the worst example fields you could pick to argue against basic research because almost every discovery can enter the "applied" side quite quickly. Not every field is physics - is there a gap between theory and application in physics? Yes. In most subfields of biology or chemistry? Not really! It makes no sense to talk about this issue like the LHC's relatively abstract purpose is the case for all basic research.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Well ... would it? Either version of the question is fine. Well, uh, yes, part of psychiatric drug research is heavily dependent on "basic" research. SSRIs couldn't have been developed without a detailed understanding of serotonin reuptake, could they? And yet before SSRIs someone studying serotonin reuptake was just some nerd in a lab fiddling with pointless cellular minutia. But psychiatric drug development existed before SSRIs, of course - so at what point did the preliminary stages of drug development leave the realm of basic research? After SSRIs but before now? No, of course not. They never left. Somebody's working on discovering something right now, as I post, that a drug 15 years from now will depend upon but which we have no idea even exists at the moment. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Aug 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:If developing a new product is "in the realm" of basic research, then literally everything is in the realm of basic research, and it's not a very meaningful distinction. Let me familiarize you with how rational drug design works, very briefly. A publicly funded researcher doing basic research, not necessarily intending to "develop a product" in any meaningful way at all, usually does the preliminary work, which you could call "target discovery and elucidation". Essentially, this guy is investigating some receptor and documenting what it does. Let me reiterate: he likely has no ties to a pharma company at all. Well, over time he discovers that this receptor might be a good target for Alzheimer's research and says so in a paper. Another guy works at, say, GSK and is trying to develop a cure for Alzheimer's. He sees basic researcher's new paper on this receptor and is excited by it, so he starts thinking about how to design a small molecule to activate the receptor. This is where basic research ends and applied science begins. The goal is no longer to find out about something but to design something that will mimic an already described process. There are a lot of steps after this, all in the "applied" realm, so there is a lot more "applied" science going on here than "basic" science, but the basic research was still absolutely required for the GSK employee to initially think about targeting the receptor. By the way scientists themselves do not draw this basic vs. applied science line nearly so brightly as you and LogisticEarth seem to want to do, unless you count the relatively sharp divide between academia and industry as equivalent. It is inherently ridiculous, also, to talk about eliminating applied research unless the state has complete control over the economy - most applied research is done by private entities in response to basic research discoveries. Theoretically if literally all humans were doing basic research and nobody ever bothered to put their discovery to use then yeah, it would be too much basic research; but that is, well, silly! Somebody is going to read those papers and use those ideas in an actual society even if there are no public funds put toward this use, if they are potentially profitable enough.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Yes, and it would also be somewhat silly to invest so heavily in basic research that practical research is stifled, falling below whatever the optimal balance might be. (The stifling could happen with enough of a tax burden, or by taking up too many qualified engineers, etc..) Then we are talking about a really fantastical society here, you know? The amount of money that would have to be put into basic research to stifle applied science would be many times greater than humanity's current investment. There are many more people with Ph.Ds than there are positions for them to fill at the moment - that suggests to me that both the state and private industry could greatly increase their investment in all kinds of science without really stepping on each others' toes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Not really; Nitrousoxide self-labels as libertarian but also supports a guaranteed minimum income, democracy, and a strong court system, all things that are at conflict with most libertarian philosophies A Hayek follower, then so probably a leftist here in a year or two
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:My libertarianism comes from utilitarianism, not from a rights-based approach like most libertarians. I think that the market is the best way to cause the greatest good for the greatest number most of the time, but that where it fails to do so, or where non-market forces are necessary to enable the market to work (like courts), other tact's can be used. Your position is actually called "market socialism", fyi I also developed politically in a Mill -> Hayek direction and once you get over the whole "government is inherently poo poo" thing you discover you're actually on the left. It's why Hayek is poorly thought of among the real shitheads like ancaps. You have acknowledged that the state is useful for collective action so it's just a matter of time. Edit: On a different note, https://twitter.com/rtdnews/status/772260781916352513 here come dat Gary Jazerus fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Oh yes, nationalizing whole industries left and right. That will work splendidly. Good thing we have all of these successful countries to point to which are/were doing fantastic: Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the Soviet Union, East Germany. You left off the UK and France.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Hey guys remember the BBC, that noted failed communist propaganda organ?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
And who could forget left-wing icon George H.W. Bush's resolution of the savings and loan crisis through nationalization of their debts, what a socialist thing to do, bailing out the people because they trusted financial institutions
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:You mean nationalizing the risk and privatizing the benefits? Truly a man thinking of the common people. yeah it's not like S&Ls were mutual associations between regular people or anything I mean they were trash Presidents but even the elder Bush knew a good nationalization when he saw it
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Look, it was those folks' fault for living in an era before bitcoin. Shoulda lost it all rather than subjecting the nation to the original sin - redistribution.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The thought experiment was: state owned, competing business that exist in a market with money. So politicians would be incentivized to fight for jobs for their constituents directly instead of competing to see who can give the most corporations the biggest tax breaks so that whoever debases themselves the most can be chosen by the grace of the free market? The benefits of political competition would go directly to the people rather than passing through capital? Yes, I can see how this would be a huge issue in our brave new economy 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:A rights based libertarian would obviously oppose business owners who attempt to kill, maim, bully, or prevent unions from organizing, at least if they are consistent. And if employees, realistically, are less powerful than their employer even unionized, obviously it's the right of the employer to deny their employees reasonable terms of employment? Natural law, no way around it, I guess? The state is useful for reducing power imbalances, allowing for equal bargaining by two parties in more situations than is possible without a state. Anybody will admit that there are also times it exacerbates power imbalances but this doesn't mean we should give up on the concept of the state, or aim for a minimal state. Regulations on contracts between unequal parties that prevent the more powerful party from outright abusing the lesser party are not an impediment to the market but an improvement. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Yeah I don't disagree with that at all. The general strike ban is a huge part of why labor law has nearly frozen for decades and decades and unionization has declined in the US. I'm not sure I even as much as implied that I'm a fan of the current laws around labor-capital relations - but there is a place for the state there. Without regulations as a relatively permanent way of securing victories, labor would be stuck refighting the most basic of fights like child labor. Just look at how state neglect has led to the erosion of basic pillars like the minimum wage and 40-hour work week. Unless you had unions effectively acting as a state (in which case, welcome syndicalist comrade) they aren't going to be any better at defending universal labor rights by themselves, without state support, either.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
I'm happy that you've totally ignored my post, that means I've made you think hard about how wrong you are.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:You would think that generally the party with more money and resources would tend to (though not always) be able to use the state to further their interests over the less powerful though right? If money and resources translate directly to political influence, yes. The point of democracy is partially to provide a counterbalance to money and resources by forcing the state to acknowledge other interests. This works in tandem with other countervailing forces such as labor organization to allow society to work for the benefit of interests that are not rich and powerful. These forces are necessary. There was like a hundred years of off-and-on revolutionary chaos in Europe over this poo poo, to institute checks on unbridled exercise of power. Democracy in the US is broken, but that doesn't mean we should simply retreat to feudalism, which is the natural state of money and resources totally dominating society. What, exactly, is undesirable about a state which uses force (in the broad libertarian sense) to right injustice and balance power disparities that have arisen from historical and ongoing abuse of some citizens by other citizens, and to contain potential future abuses? Governments in the US and pretty much all of the world have their priorities wrong in a lot of ways, often because they are corrupted by moneyed interests, but these are not inherent properties of "the state". A crucial function of the state in any form of economy - totally market-based, entirely command, whatever - is to blunt the negative effects of the chosen economic policy on any one citizen, because the economy is a tool used by society to distribute resources, not a natural force whose whims must be obeyed. Free market ideology started out as a sensible enough thing in a world of heavy protectionism and constant trade wars, but modern free market advocates have made a cargo cult out of it - they fail to understand the context of what they believe in, and make something religious out of something that was once wholly practical. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:How do ancaps handle inheritance? I'm sure they don't, as in, they just assume it continues to work as it already does. But dead people don't have rights, and therefore what had previously been their property is in no way inviolable. Nor can other people be bound to respect the wishes of a corpse in delivering up what had belonged to him to his so-called "heirs." You pay a DRO to enforce your will with guns, and then have your heirs set up a second contract with another DRO to murder the first DRO if they instead seize your property or fail to defend it. This is perfectly logical 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Why doesn't the executor keep all the property? Because then your DRO will kill them. Why doesn't the DRO then keep the property? Well, this is why your heirs have to have that second DRO on tap. If you're starting to think that this seems like a scenario from Fallout, congrats, you understand anarcho-capitalism. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Sep 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Huh, you're right. I was taking for granted that an AnCap society would be well functioning. For a group that enshrines personal property, you would think maintaining chains of custody, or whatever, would be a core tenant. This is the thing you have to see through to see the real madness of an ancap society. Ancaps always describe DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations, for the uneducated  ) as though they're just arbitration companies - perfectly genteel folks who get the two disputing parties in a room and help them resolve their dispute as per an agreement to use that DRO signed by both parties. This seems reasonable until you realize - what is holding them back? See, DROs also provide police services. That is, one-sided contracts - the criminals are not freely agreeing to resolve a dispute with their victims through the services of the DRO, the customer is buying an open-ended contract against anybody who meets specific conditions (such as "stole my stuff"). At least some of the DROs are quite heavily armed organizations, and their legitimate functions (insofar as they are "legitimate" in an ancap society) involve the use of force against people who are not their customers. How long can even the most virtuous DRO go before the fact that every situation they are involved in provides opportunities for warlordism and profiteering twists them into bandits, or mafia, or, at best, liege-lords?Okay, you say, but surely the competition between them will keep this in check somewhat. If a DRO is too out of line they're gonna be brought down by the Freedom & Liberation Squad DRO, which is made up exclusively of ACLU members who undergo futuristic brain scans every week to make sure they are truly dedicated to the idea of justice. Okay, so if the "good" DROs have enough power to resist the corrupt ones, at best you have a continuous low-level death squad presence that is made up of the corrupt DROs doing business and the counter-squads from the ACLU DRO, at worst you have a civil war. Or...worst of all to an ancap...the ACLU DRO definitively wins and establishes a monopoly of force. You know. A state. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Sep 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:My favorite question about homesteading involves someone coming upon an unsettled planet (or moon or asteroid, etc). Could you build a fence around the equator and then say "I have fenced in the northern hemisphere and thus I own it by homesteading. I have also fenced in the southern hemisphere and own it also"? What about a fence that's a one-foot-diameter circle; it would contain both the "inside" and "outside", so it should make the whole world your property, right? You must mix your
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Captian Nuke posted:This is my personal favorite bit of libertarian madness http://volokh.com/2011/02/15/asteroid-defense-and-libertarianism/ an intense debate about if preventing giant asteroid from hitting the earth would justify raising taxes (the author thinks no). Isn't the asteroid violating the NAP?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Captian Nuke posted:Nope its a natural force, like a tree falling on you and we don't expect the government to do anything about that now do we? Okay so if we send a dude in a rocket to the asteroid, can he homestead it and then declare war on the Earth, making the asteroid a valid target?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I would have no way of knowing what profile was yours, but I'm only going to post aggregated data which has been disidentified. My scraper did pick up usernames but I've already taken them out of the data I'm working with, as well as change location data to regions, because it's really easy to re-identify profiles. Lots of students read The Fountainhead for the essay contest scholarship, so it's not too surprising that there isn't a huge political affiliation correlation. Atlas Shrugged is probably the most reliable of Rand's books for this sort of thing. Reason magazine might be a good one to pick up the non-objectivist libertarians.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I don't actually have enough text to make carobot work properly, but here's my first swing at it. Probably Palantir, the intelligence software company brilliantly named after the seeing stones in LotR which were twisted into tools of evil by Sauron.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
A left-libertarian is an anarchist or a Georgist, basically. There are also "left-libertarians" within the right-libertarian tradition. A term I've seen applied a couple of times to these folks is "cosmopolitan libertarian", and I used to be one. Basically these are folks who are all-in on the socially-left part of libertarianism and are very skeptical of the von Mises/Rothbard/Rand traditions, and they tend to like Hayek. Most of these people are baby socialists who don't know enough about socialism to realize it's what they actually want; they are only right-leaning economically because they stumbled onto Reason before they found Jacobin, to put it simply. Reason magazine is in this tradition, and they hate every US politician for being "half-right". I might be biased since this was my camp but most of these folks are just regular, non-nutty people with an interest in social justice but a total ignorance of the economic purpose of the state. They hate the way the American government and police oppress minorities, are some of the most consistent opponents of police militarization (there's a reason Radley Balko used to write for Reason and it's not because he's actually a libertarian), hate the NSA, and are basically against the state being evil. Load up Reason and you won't see ancap diatribes - you'll see often-accurate snipes at the lovely parts of American society, plus some whining about taxes. This still holds true today even though I'm looking at it as a socialist and not a libertarian. They just don't understand that what they want is only half the solution - they want the state to be neutral, while our goal as a society should really be for the state to be a force for good, to put it in really simple terms. Once you continue to the right past those folks, you're into the weeds of an-caps like von Mises, Rothbard, etc. where you're contemplating the NAP ad infinitum and constructing logical reasons why parents selling their children into slavery is a necessary feature of a free society. These people hate Reason libertarians for their impurity and tolerance of the existence of the state. The polyamorous minority libertarian who was the original topic of this discussion is probably not an an-cap, but a naive Reason libertarian. There's no reason to try to convince such people that they're in the same movement as a bunch of white nationalists and child slavers because they aren't, really. If you bring up the NAP with a Reason libertarian they'll probably say "what's that?" So, I would expect the presence of Reason in a profile to be a significant marker for differences from the general libertarian population. Edit: I guess I should clarify that there's also a big middle-ground between the Reason folks and the an-caps, which is basically the garden-variety American libertarian. They are usually single-issue voters who want an ideology to back up their desire for absolutely no regulations on guns or drugs or refusing sales to black people or whatever, so they aren't inherently left-leaning socially like the Reason libertarians, but they also don't want neo-feudalism. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I don't know about the population at large but a huge minority of these profiles mention "polyamory." And "debate." Politically-uninvolved polyamorous people are probably drawn to libertarianism by the promises of contractual freedom; they want to set up three-party marriages and such. Given that marriage as a state function is irrelevant for an-caps, they probably aren't going very deep into the rabbit hole. Libertarians also talked about polyamory before tumblr existed, so there's some residual pull there just like with weed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:The polyamory rabbit hole or the Libertarian one? The libertarian one. If you're into libertarianism because you want a three-way marriage, it's a bit silly to abolish marriage. I'd bet that they're a similar population to Reason libertarians, if they aren't just this: Discendo Vox posted:woof, I shoulda guessed that with a dating profile dataset. I'm gonna guess that a substantial number of those people are using "polyamory" to mean "I want to cheat on my partner".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wait, did Jrod ever even talk about rape? Or did... My God... No, but he did sell it into slavery under WrenP.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Golbez posted:My argument with Libertarian friends on Facebook is, the LP is doing it all wrong. They like to say, of course a third party has a chance! Just look at Abraham Lincoln! Except for the fact that, in 1860, the Republicans were already defending 116 seats in Congress, 38 seats in the Senate, and had at least a half dozen governors. The LP has zero in all categories. There is no comparison. They don't have the manpower to do it even if they wanted to. They usually put the most normal person in the party at the top of the ballot. Eight years ago it was Bob Barr, aka "an advisor to the Duvalier regime". Right now that's Gary "Aleppo, weed" Johnson. Everyone else is less electable than those guys.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:If you don't forgive me for my sins after I confess you violate the NAP. and as we know, violating the NAP is the greatest sin of all
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:This is definitely not true. It is and it isn't. Libertarians like to talk a lot about "rent-seekers" who use the government to extract wealth from society, and in that sense they are not OK with the rich rigging the system. Notably though, welfare recipients are "rent-seeking" in a lot of formulations of libertarianism too. The solution to rent-seeking, to a libertarian, is to remove the functions of government which can be used for that purpose, i.e. all redistributive and regulatory functions. This would place the wealthy in a de facto position of total control, so in that sense they are perfectly OK with things being rigged to favor dynastic wealth as long as the rigging is done entirely through the actions of private entities. There are many types of libertarians though; someone who is heavily socially libertarian but only moderately economically libertarian probably genuinely isn't okay with either of the above scenarios. They are not really what this thread is about.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Music Theory posted:I walk past the Mises Institute every day on my way to class and today is the day I decided to find out what it is. Turns out I'm basically neighbors with Ron Paul! Much worse, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I've been traveling and working and just saw the new thread title! We did it, thread! Just...don't ever put Jrod Prime in a body with weaponizable functions, okay?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
At this rate Jrod Prime will be Trump's Treasury Secretary.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I took that class! Happy New Year, TTP! (and all) I'm doing great, though JRodimus_Prime gets weirder by the day. This guy looks like a libertarian, so it checks out: 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
quote:- Intersectional identity construction Joshmo posted:I literally have no idea what any of these words and phrases mean. Maybe he should take some of the lessons of the US Constitution and apply those to his own, specifically Pro #3. Also maybe he should actually read the US Constitution first, as his list of cons makes it pretty clear, white supremacy withstanding, he has not. But you have intrigued me to look into that thread, because my life is exciting. 1. "Your identity is defined by all of the categories you fall into rather than just a few." 2. "Your fellow community members will judge the poo poo out of you at all times, but you agreed to it up front." 3.  4. "Government will arise naturally from the structure of society." reading too much pseudo-academic bullshit makes you a natural at understanding eripsa
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I am totally in favour of getting as many Scientologists, as well as libertarians, on the edge of a cliff because then we could easily push them off and watch them complain about how Newton's First Law is aggressing against them right before impact. let he who is without thetans cast the first stone
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 06:27
|
|