Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Already Anarchy!

  1. #1

    Already Anarchy!

    I sent this to Being Libertarian, but they take too long to publish -- if they ever decide to publish this at all.

    I'm posting this here, though -- sans formatting -- because I think it's important and needs to be said/heard/seen:

    Elections are glorified polls that proponents of the State use to justify dominance. The outcome is binding and everyone must adhere to the results, regardless of individual participation; presumably. “Statists” – essentially, authoritarians – often ignore the absurdity of establishing and supporting such a system, opting to stress the supposed importance of participating in said politics instead. Untangling those convoluted thought processes requires more than words, and attempting to do so via this medium would likely be a waste of time, at this point. Instead, this article is directed at the like-minded, who understand that government in its current incarnation is immoral and wrong, but haven’t broken out of the traditional way of nation-state thinking, yet.

    Can governments exist within anarchy? Initially, the question might appear as a rhetorical oxymoron. By definition, anarchy consists of *no government*; or, more accurately, *no rulers*, but more on that later. Most people stop there, without thinking about the concept itself. We all know that words can be deceptive, though. Just as renaming theft or extortion to something else – say, “taxation”? – does not change the nature of the action; neither does the costume one wears. (But, don’t we all wear costumes, in some form or another? Sorry, I don’t mean to turn this into one of THOSE!)

    Any newbies that are still hanging around? Excellent. Thank the desired 500 word minimum for this brief interlude. Let’s discuss rights. Life, liberty, property? Sure. A better way: As long as your actions don’t harm another, consider it a right. Do you have a right to healthcare? Sure. Do you have a right to forcefully take others’ money to accomplish it? No! Lather, rinse, repeat for anything that is subsidized sans voluntary transactions.

    Sending others to intervene in a situation where you, yourself, would hesitate is dastardly; but, who is more culpable in the resulting action: the person who sends the collector, or the one who collects? Both are culpable, but the one committing the action is most reprehensible of all; for, without committing the deed, no one would have been wronged.

    But, back to anarchy! Let’s be practical. Without militaries or physical impediments of some sort, national borders are as illusory as the security these provisions proclaim to provide. Regions within a national border are further classified into states, counties, and municipalities. Through these jurisdictions – the individuals working within those departments, rather – “the law of the land” is enforced. The plots shrink, and fences replace borders. That’s the generally accepted conception, at least.

    I posit that these enforcers are the true rulers, whether they purport to be or not. But, this doesn’t stop with governments. Everywhere – school, work, home – there are hierarchies; especially in the animal kingdom. How, then, can I plausibly state that you live in anarchy, without rulers? Unless you’re actively being coerced, you’re free. Even while being harassed or threatened, you can still choose how you handle the situation.

    This is where I’m supposed to talk about self defense, relate it all back to anarchy, and close with Solzhenitsyn; but violence usually isn’t the answer. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that those perpetuating these systems sincerely believe that they are helping, even as they jeopardize the lives of both their victims and themselves via their unnecessary interventions.

    Viewing the world through this lens removes some of the abstraction from government, and allows you to see it for what it really is. Topics from sanctions down to speeding tickets become more fungible, but outside of the regular pattern of personal interactions – it becomes clear that other mechanisms are employed. (Control over financial institutions and killer robots come to mind.)

    A piece of paper won’t prevent abuse. People have a better chance, but not without communication and education. Without respect, logic becomes muted. (That is to say, no one wants to listen to a smart ass.)
    Also, there's no need to wait with the internet!



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    it is the truth

    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by jkr View Post
    it is the truth
    Is it, though?

    Truth is rarely popular, but I thought these ideas might gain more traction on here. (I was wrong about that!)

  5. #4
    I think I agree with you.

    But I can't see where you tell us what claim you are arguing for, like a thesis statement.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    I think I agree with you.

    But I can't see where you tell us what claim you are arguing for, like a thesis statement.
    It's in the title. We already live in anarchy.

    The goal was to be as comprehensive as possible, as concisely as possible. (Without making it read like a boring research paper.)

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Proph View Post
    It's in the title. We already live in anarchy.

    The goal was to be as comprehensive as possible, as concisely as possible. (Without making it read like a boring research paper.)
    OK, well then why don't you actually say that in the post that's supposedly arguing for that conclusion, and show how the claims you make help support that?

    I thought that was what you were getting at until I realized that you never said so.

  8. #7
    I got it...figured it out in Rons 08 run

    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    OK, well then why don't you actually say that in the post that's supposedly arguing for that conclusion, and show how the claims you make help support that?

    I thought that was what you were getting at until I realized that you never said so.
    I thought it was unnecessary, because it was self evident.

    Quote Originally Posted by jkr View Post
    I got it...figured it out in Rons 08 run
    That was when I first got started.

    Years later, I came to understand that voting won't fix anything and that government itself was the problem. The purpose of this article is to encourage the reader to seek freedom constantly -- regardless of their current situation -- instead of waiting every 2 to 4 years on solutions that will never come.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Proph View Post
    It's in the title. We already live in anarchy.

    The goal was to be as comprehensive as possible, as concisely as possible. (Without making it read like a boring research paper.)
    Also, violence begets violence. There's too many people itching for rebellion. Granted, they're all likely keyboard warriors; but, they are no different than people who still participate in the political process expecting change: They do not know what they clamor for.

    I like to hope the most recent court ruling is just a first step in the right direction, bringing some legitimacy back to the courts.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Proph View Post
    Also, violence begets violence. There's too many people itching for rebellion. Granted, they're all likely keyboard warriors; but, they are no different than people who still participate in the political process expecting change: They do not know what they clamor for.

    I like to hope the most recent court ruling is just a first step in the right direction, bringing some legitimacy back to the courts.
    That court case being Timbs v. Indiana.

    I also think it's important to have a nonviolent message out there in the wake of terrorist attacks like in New Zealand.

    Self defense does serve a purpose, though. (Unfortunately, civil disobedience in the form of open carrying is likely to get you shot in some places.)

    Minimizing soft targets doesn't happen via more policing, but by a more armed and informed public.

  13. #11
    We definitely do not live in an anarchy currently.

    Otherwise our roads would have disappeared a long time ago.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Proph View Post
    Also, violence begets violence. There's too many people itching for rebellion. Granted, they're all likely keyboard warriors; but, they are no different than people who still participate in the political process expecting change: They do not know what they clamor for.

    I like to hope the most recent court ruling is just a first step in the right direction, bringing some legitimacy back to the courts.
    The key problem with anarchy is there would be nothing to stop bands of roaming marauders. They could kick in people's doors for just about any reason they choose and shoot anyone inside with basically zero accountability. And I imagine they would set up checkpoints where your choice is to either comply or receive violence.

    I wouldn't want to live in that kind of world.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Proph View Post
    That court case being Timbs v. Indiana.

    I also think it's important to have a nonviolent message out there in the wake of terrorist attacks like in New Zealand.

    Self defense does serve a purpose, though. (Unfortunately, civil disobedience in the form of open carrying is likely to get you shot in some places.)

    Minimizing soft targets doesn't happen via more policing, but by a more armed and informed public.
    A nonviolent, non-collectivist message.

  16. #14
    I don't see the purpose of redefining "anarchy" in this way.

    In the context of the debate between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, for example, redefining anarchy in such a way that both minarchism and anarcho-capitalism qualify as "anarchy" doesn't change the substance of the debate at all; the real differences between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism don't disappear because they are both placed under the same label (this redefined "anarchy"). Similarly, in the context of a libertarian criticizing some aggressive action on the part of the state, nothing of substance in that criticism changes because, according to this novel definition, there is "anarchy" whether the state takes that action or not.

    What am I missing?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I don't see the purpose of redefining "anarchy" in this way.

    In the context of the debate between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, for example, redefining anarchy in such a way that both minarchism and anarcho-capitalism qualify as "anarchy" doesn't change the substance of the debate at all; the real differences between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism don't disappear because they are both placed under the same label (this redefined "anarchy"). Similarly, in the context of a libertarian criticizing some aggressive action on the part of the state, nothing of substance in that criticism changes because, according to this novel definition, there is "anarchy" whether the state takes that action or not.

    What am I missing?
    Rather than getting hung up on definitions -- which are incredibly important -- concepts can be discussed instead. The term "anarchy" generally has negative connotations associated with it, undeservedly so. Once proponents of the State understand that the enforcers of their ideologies are the very "warlords" they were taught to fear, perhaps their opinions on governments -- monopolies on violence, separated via jurisdiction, which often cooperate unless they are warring -- and ensuing conflicts will change.

    My intent was not redefinition, but reconciliation. Regardless of the words, definitions, concepts, ideas -- whatever you want to call it -- reality still exists, relatively unperturbed. (All we can do is attempt to describe it.)

  18. #16
    Most people can agree that aggression is "bad."

    They just disagree on who the aggressor is, sometimes.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Proph View Post
    Rather than getting hung up on definitions -- which are incredibly important -- concepts can be discussed instead. The term "anarchy" generally has negative connotations associated with it, undeservedly so. Once proponents of the State understand that the enforcers of their ideologies are the very "warlords" they were taught to fear, perhaps their opinions on governments -- monopolies on violence, separated via jurisdiction, which often cooperate unless they are warring -- and ensuing conflicts will change.

    My intent was not redefinition, but reconciliation. Regardless of the words, definitions, concepts, ideas -- whatever you want to call it -- reality still exists, relatively unperturbed. (All we can do is attempt to describe it.)
    I can appreciate that reasoning, but it isn't going to persuade minarchists (such as myself). The minarchist view is that anarcho-capitalism will devolve into warlords fighting over control of territory. When a warlord establishes control of a particular piece of territory (as one sooner or later inevitably will), a state is born.

    We can think of an experiment in anarcho-capitalism in four distinct phases:

    1. the status quo (the state exists)

    2. the experiment begins (anarcho-capitalism exists)

    3. break-down (anarcho-capitalism devolves into warlords fighting for territory)

    4. return to where we began (the state reemerges when warlords consolidate their controls over their respective territories)

    Now, what's the point going through the unpleasantness of phase #3 only to return to our starting point?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I can appreciate that reasoning, but it isn't going to persuade minarchists (such as myself). The minarchist view is that anarcho-capitalism will devolve into warlords fighting over control of territory. When a warlord establishes control of a particular piece of territory (as one sooner or later inevitably will), a state is born.

    We can think of an experiment in anarcho-capitalism in four distinct phases:

    1. the status quo (the state exists)

    2. the experiment begins (anarcho-capitalism exists)

    3. break-down (anarcho-capitalism devolves into warlords fighting for territory)

    4. return to where we began (the state reemerges when warlords consolidate their controls over their respective territories)

    Now, what's the point going through the unpleasantness of phase #3 only to return to our starting point?
    The main point I guess I want to get across is: We're at so-called "Phase 4" already! (And, this "territory" only extends to the amount of control over a peoples. Imagine how different things would be without the 3rd amendment being taken for granted...)

    I wanted to link something about the Nightwatchman State earlier, but never got around to it.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Proph View Post
    The main point I guess I want to get across is: We're at so-called "Phase 4" already! (And, this "territory" only extends to the amount of control over a peoples. Imagine how different things would be without the 3rd amendment being taken for granted...)
    I know.

    So, why undertake this experiment only to end up back in the same place again, with the added bonus of having lived (or not) through a civil war?

    It's like burning down your house for the pleasure of spending the money to rebuild it exactly as it was.

    I wanted to link something about the Nightwatchman State earlier, but never got around to it.
    That's the minarchist ideal.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I know.

    So, why undertake this experiment only to end up back in the same place again, with the added bonus of having lived (or not) through a civil war?

    It's like burning down your house for the pleasure of spending the money to rebuild it exactly as it was.



    That's the minarchist ideal.
    Where is this civil war nonsense coming from? Advances in technology allow us other, peaceful avenues of resistance. (Video, nearly instant communication, cryptocurrencies...)

    There are a plethora of ways to segregate individuals via classifications -- cops and mundanes; Democrats and Republicans; liberals vs conservatives; statists vs anarchists; bureaucrats and voters and illegals and government and... the list goes on! -- which often are used to demonize said groups. (The narrative of which the Media controls. But, oops! There's that lumping of individuals again! Individuals whom often label themselves, but, crap, that lumping!)

    Demonization -- seeing other human beings as demons essentially, deserving of punishment; not just lesser beings that happen to be a nuisance -- generally allows us to permit certain abuses that we otherwise wouldn't.

    We're living in anarchy -- per the original post -- now. (Phase 4.)

  24. #21
    Great post Proph. Something sorely lacking around here these days is an actual philosophical discussion.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Proph View Post
    Where is this civil war nonsense coming from? Advances in technology allow us other, peaceful avenues of resistance. (Video, nearly instant communication, cryptocurrencies...)

    There are a plethora of ways to segregate individuals via classifications -- cops and mundanes; Democrats and Republicans; liberals vs conservatives; statists vs anarchists; bureaucrats and voters and illegals and government and... the list goes on! -- which often are used to demonize said groups. (The narrative of which the Media controls. But, oops! There's that lumping of individuals again! Individuals whom often label themselves, but, crap, that lumping!)

    Demonization -- seeing other human beings as demons essentially, deserving of punishment; not just lesser beings that happen to be a nuisance -- generally allows us to permit certain abuses that we otherwise wouldn't.

    We're living in anarchy -- per the original post -- now. (Phase 4.)
    The abolition of the state would result in a civil war (between would be state-builders), out of which would emerge a new state.

    Power cannot be abolished; if once scattered, it would be only a matter of time until it reappeared.

    The process by which this occurs is aptly called civil war.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The abolition of the state would result in a civil war (between would be state-builders), out of which would emerge a new state.

    Power cannot be abolished; if once scattered, it would be only a matter of time until it reappeared.

    The process by which this occurs is aptly called civil war.
    I think most of us can agree -- to some degree, at least -- that the law has been converted into plunder.

    "When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor."

    Social media can be an effective tool, and there are plenty of other ways to dissuade someone from persisting with this occupation than resorting to violence.

    Pragmatically, everyone should occupy as much of an enforcer's time as possible during each interaction, limiting their number of victims every shift in the process. (This takes more courage than most people possess, though.)

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Proph View Post
    I think most of us can agree -- to some degree, at least -- that the law has been converted into plunder.

    "When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor."

    Social media can be an effective tool, and there are plenty of other ways to dissuade someone from persisting with this occupation than resorting to violence.

    Pragmatically, everyone should occupy as much of an enforcer's time as possible during each interaction, limiting their number of victims every shift in the process. (This takes more courage than most people possess, though.)
    Absent a New Libertarian Man, the result of any experiment in anarcho-capitalism (or any kind of anarchism) is going to be as I described.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Absent a New Libertarian Man, the result of any experiment in anarcho-capitalism (or any kind of anarchism) is going to be as I described.
    And why not as I described?

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Proph View Post
    And why not as I described?
    For reasoned explained; there will be civil war (and the winners won't be Rothbardians).
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I can appreciate that reasoning, but it isn't going to persuade minarchists (such as myself). The minarchist view is that anarcho-capitalism will devolve into warlords fighting over control of territory. When a warlord establishes control of a particular piece of territory (as one sooner or later inevitably will), a state is born.

    We can think of an experiment in anarcho-capitalism in four distinct phases:

    1. the status quo (the state exists)

    2. the experiment begins (anarcho-capitalism exists)

    3. break-down (anarcho-capitalism devolves into warlords fighting for territory)

    4. return to where we began (the state reemerges when warlords consolidate their controls over their respective territories)

    Now, what's the point going through the unpleasantness of phase #3 only to return to our starting point?
    Quote Originally Posted by Proph View Post
    The main point I guess I want to get across is: We're at so-called "Phase 4" already! (And, this "territory" only extends to the amount of control over a peoples. Imagine how different things would be without the 3rd amendment being taken for granted...)

    I wanted to link something about the Nightwatchman State earlier, but never got around to it.
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I know.

    So, why undertake this experiment only to end up back in the same place again, with the added bonus of having lived (or not) through a civil war?

    It's like burning down your house for the pleasure of spending the money to rebuild it exactly as it was.



    That's the minarchist ideal.
    You sidetracked me with that "civil war" guff before. All of those "phases" you supplied in the first quoted response are happening around us now, already, depending on where you look. War usually isn't in anyone's best interests, and technology -- like the internet -- provides avenues to counter propaganda which were unavailable in the past. (Granted, these often are also dissemination points of propaganda itself -- everything is a double-edged sword -- in the battle of ideas, the libertarian philosophy will undoubtedly win.)

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The abolition of the state would result in a civil war (between would be state-builders), out of which would emerge a new state.

    Power cannot be abolished; if once scattered, it would be only a matter of time until it reappeared.

    The process by which this occurs is aptly called civil war.
    Power never wrests with the individual, even when they are alone? (Though, "No man is an island...")
    Last edited by Proph; 07-18-2019 at 09:49 AM.

  32. #28
    Government usually represents unilateral violence, but not when there are multiple. The point I'm trying to get across is that these factions are splintered down to the very individual. Pompeo deciding not to do anything about Iran seizing a British oil tanker prompted this post.

     
    An Iranian oil tanker was seized on July 4th, presumably over sanctions. A day after, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander said they would seize a British oil tanker if the UK refused to return theirs. (They followed through, apparently.)

    I was wondering how Pompeo could make the statement that US sanctions were not to blame:
    “The responsibility in the first instance falls to the United Kingdom to take care of their ships,” Pompeo said, adding, “This isn’t because of US sanctions, this is because of the theocracy of the leadership in Iran, the revolutionary zeal to conduct terror around the world, for now four decades, continues.”
    When Iran obviously did this in retaliation:
    Iran has said that all 23 crew members on the Stena Impero are “safe and in good health,” and that it seized the tanker in response to the UK’s seizure of one of its own tankers on July 4.
    But then it occurred to me that Pompeo is a politician, speaking half-truths. The two little letters that let him get away with the aforementioned statement are "US" instead of "EU". All sanctions are awful and unnecessarily escalate conflict. It's not every day you see a warmonger shy away from an opportunity to go to war, though! Hopefully the trend will continue and lives will continue to be spared, on all sides. (Long enough for everyone to figure out what on Earth is happening.)

    If you guys haven't heard of Mark Passio, he's great.

  33. #29
    One of these days, I'll eventually get around to re-posting the original text outside of quotes and with links to ease referencing. I have multiple reasons for writing all of this and persistently bumping, but the biggest one is this: do what you can in the here and now, because really, that's all you've got.

    Sometimes, governments serve the correct purpose. Actual criminals -- not merely dissidents -- are apprehended. Corrupt and fraudulent institutions are occasionally investigated. ("Even a broken clock is right twice a day.")

    Too often, political and philosophical discussions devolve into hypotheticals. Straw-man arguments help no one. Rather than waiting for ideal conditions, work with what you've got.

    Case in point: Medical Marijuana legalization. Relatively recent hemp legislation has made current methods for testing inadequate, as most of Texas' facilities are unable to determine the amount of THC on suspected contraband. (Being interrogated and potentially punished for a substance that you choose to put in your body is absurd, but it still happens.)

    Why does any of this matter? Per the original post, we're living in anarchy and governments exist within it. There are a myriad of ways to handle entanglements with the State, but reciprocating violence is the most dramatic. Pulling a trigger is easy, but few heed the consequences of hurting -- if not outright killing -- another human being. Why take such drastic action when the "law" suddenly shifts in the favor of the persecuted?

     
    Well, if someone kidnaps you, then you're at the mercy -- or lack thereof -- of your captor.
     
    (I want to discuss Nazi Germany -- and in a very specific way relating to the exacerbating effects of war -- but, I'm not sure how to transition. I can't just leave the rest unposted, though, because it might serve as a foundation for better discussions in the future. I'll stop here for now.)

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Proph View Post
    [UNHIDE]Well, if someone kidnaps you, then you're at the mercy -- or lack thereof -- of your captor. [UNHIDE](I want to discuss Nazi Germany -- and in a very specific way relating to the exacerbating effects of war -- but, I'm not sure how to transition. I can't just leave the rest unposted, though, because it might serve as a foundation for better discussions in the future. I'll stop here for now.)[/HIDE][/HIDE]
    Would Nazis still have felt the urge to gas and incinerate those held captive, had there not been a war at the time? (That's the crux of this currently non-existent debate.)

    Scarcity -- particularly food shortages, which would have been caused by disruptions in supply lines from the war -- can influence people to do things that they otherwise couldn't even imagine. (Though, this shouldn't be construed as an argument against capitalism, because price signals in the free market help to mitigate this lack of resources.)

    Now that I think about it: Has intervention by government ever solved anything?

     
    France helping the colonists during the American Revolution, perhaps? (But, look at the size of the Leviathan, now!)

    You can't escape natural law or economics.



Similar Threads

  1. Anarchy Works!
    By Anti Federalist in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 298
    Last Post: 08-30-2018, 10:22 PM
  2. What Is Anarchy?
    By Ronin Truth in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 06:08 PM
  3. Libertarian Anarchy
    By Ronin Truth in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-27-2016, 07:55 AM
  4. What Anarchy Isn't
    By green73 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-20-2013, 03:14 PM
  5. anarchy!
    By Acala in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-25-2010, 12:17 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •