Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3868
|
Post: #1  Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:33 am Post subject: Tangibility of Capitalism, and the nature of Laissez-Faire |
  |
|
|
[I split the following posts from the topic, Purchasing Guilt - Guilt in Economic Transaction Chains, because I believe they are off-topic for that thread. Thanks, Scott.]
| Belinda wrote: |
The capitalistic system as it exists at present is cruel and unjust. Nearly every investment as made by insurance providers, mortgage lenders and banks is based partly upon downright immoral activities such as those of Shell in Nigeria, and such as those of BP in the Gulf.Such as sweated labour in developing countries. There are some ethical investments but they don't pay as well and when money is scarce and every penny counts an individual investor cannot easily be blamed for turning a blind eye.
Religions seems to be powerless to alter the capitalistic excesses committed by the finacial powerhouses that are the actual rulers of society. These are Goliaths, where is David? |
| Dewey wrote: |
| (To belinda, blaming capitalism seems like blaming gravity for the airplane's crash.) |
But capitalism and its accompanying lack of responsibility towards persons is a force to be reckoned with as is the force of gravity.The airplane's crash may be caused by cutting corners in the design and maintainance, not allowing the pilot enough time off etc. All in the interests of the owners/shareholders of the capital that backs the company. The risks apparently taken by BP were not the result of ignorance. The sinking of the Titanic was not caused by ignorance but by the pursuit of profit.
Capitalism is a monster if it's not controlled by central socialist checks on its excessive and innate greed.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meleagar
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 1515
|
| Post: #2 Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
Capitalism is a monster if it's not controlled by central socialist checks on its excessive and innate greed. |
I wonder what provides the control and checks on the excessive and innate greed of centralized socialism?
_________________
http://spiritualintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dewey
Contributor
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 525
Location: California
|
| Post: #3 Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Hi Belinda. I think of capitalism as an economic tool. It's just a tool --like my hammer. My thumb thinks my hammer is a monster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 1679
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Post: #4 Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
| Dewey wrote: |
| (To belinda, blaming capitalism seems like blaming gravity for the airplane's crash.) |
But capitalism and its accompanying lack of responsibility towards persons is a force to be reckoned with as is the force of gravity.The airplane's crash may be caused by cutting corners in the design and maintainance, not allowing the pilot enough time off etc. All in the interests of the owners/shareholders of the capital that backs the company. The risks apparently taken by BP were not the result of ignorance. The sinking of the Titanic was not caused by ignorance but by the pursuit of profit. |
Belinda,
You do realize that Capitalism is merely an intangible principle, don't you? In it's purest form, it's merely a contractual agreement that men consensually agree to abide by. From Wiki ...
| Wikipedia wrote: |
In economics, laissez-faire (English pronunciation: /ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər/ ( listen), French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) means allowing industry to be free from state intervention, especially restrictions in the form of tariffs and government monopolies.
The phrase is French and literally means "let do", but it broadly implies "let it be", or "leave it alone." |
How can an intangible thing be "responsible" for the people who contract according to it's standards of NON-COERCION?
************************************
As to Scott's "Economic Guilt" principle, here's my take; your every exhalation of CO2 compels and encourages the plants to grow.
Should you, then, feel responsible and deserving of credit for their existence?
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unrealist42
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 230
Location: City of Dreams
|
| Post: #5 Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| whitetrshsoldier wrote: |
[
How can an intangible thing be "responsible" for the people who contract according to it's standards of NON-COERCION?
|
Capitalism is a principle of action whose consequences are apparent, i.e. capitalism is tangible.
The standard of non-coercion in laissez-faire is applied only to the state. There is nothing in laissez-faire that sets a standard of non-coercion for any other actor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 1679
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Post: #6 Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Unrealist42 wrote: |
| whitetrshsoldier wrote: |
[
How can an intangible thing be "responsible" for the people who contract according to it's standards of NON-COERCION?
|
Capitalism is a principle of action whose consequences are apparent, i.e. capitalism is tangible.
The standard of non-coercion in laissez-faire is applied only to the state. There is nothing in laissez-faire that sets a standard of non-coercion for any other actor. |
I respectfully disagree with your first statement, Unrealist42. It is the RESULTS of Capitalism's effects on society that are tangible. As you said, the "Action" of the principle, not the principle itself.
Second, Laissez-Faire requires all actors to act according to the dictates of liberty;
| Merriam-Webster wrote: |
Main Entry: lais·sez–faire
Pronunciation: \ˌle-ˌsā-ˈfer, ˌlā-, -ˌzā-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French laissez faire, imperative of laisser faire to let (people) do (as they choose)
Date: 1825
1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
2 : a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action |
Laissez-Faire requires individuals to abstain from violating one another, just as it demands the government to do the same.
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unrealist42
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 230
Location: City of Dreams
|
| Post: #7 Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| whitetrshsoldier wrote: |
I respectfully disagree with your first statement, Unrealist42. It is the RESULTS of Capitalism's effects on society that are tangible. As you said, the "Action" of the principle, not the principle itself. |
You are claiming that ideas, because they are intangible, are not to blame even when those who believe in them take actions that are in accordance with that belief.
This position does not make any sense to me unless one is attempting to salvage a bad idea from the terrible consequences of its implementation.
| Quote: |
Second, Laissez-Faire requires all actors to act according to the dictates of liberty;
| Merriam-Webster wrote: |
Main Entry: lais·sez–faire
Pronunciation: \ˌle-ˌsā-ˈfer, ˌlā-, -ˌzā-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French laissez faire, imperative of laisser faire to let (people) do (as they choose)
Date: 1825
1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
2 : a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action |
Laissez-Faire requires individuals to abstain from violating one another, just as it demands the government to do the same. |
No, it does not. The imperative of Laissez-Faire is to let people do as they chose without restriction and it has always been understood to mean exactly that. If people's actions are subject to any restrictions at all the words Laissez-Faire do not apply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 1679
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Post: #8 Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Unrealist42 wrote: |
You are claiming that ideas, because they are intangible, are not to blame even when those who believe in them take actions that are in accordance with that belief.
This position does not make any sense to me unless one is attempting to salvage a bad idea from the terrible consequences of its implementation. |
I'm claiming that you can think about murdering somebody, but mereley thinking about it won't adversely affect your victim in the tangible world.
BUT, when you ACT ON YOUR IDEA, somebody will die.
That's the big difference, Unrealist42.
| Unrealist42 wrote: |
| No, it does not. The imperative of Laissez-Faire is to let people do as they chose without restriction and it has always been understood to mean exactly that. If people's actions are subject to any restrictions at all the words Laissez-Faire do not apply. |
Alright, forget the dictionary - it's probably wrong anyways. The "imperative" of Laissez-Faire is that the Government does not intervene in ECONOMIC transactions between individuals.
It still allows for the physical protection of life, liberty, and property [Just Law, in other words], in order to ensure that each individual remains CAPABLE of participating in the free-market.
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1710
|
| Post: #9 Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Unrealist42 wrote: |
| The imperative of Laissez-Faire is to let people do as they chose without restriction and it has always been understood to mean exactly that. If people's actions are subject to any restrictions at all the words Laissez-Faire do not apply. |
That is correct in a way. But as a matter of logic it is obvious that certain logical restrictions apply. The right to not be raped, for example, logically entails a restriction on rape; the right to rape logically entails a restriction on refusing to be raped. This idea is further elaborated in my short article, What Freedom Means to Me. I highly recommend you read it if you haven't already.
I would take Laissez-Faire as being fundamentally the same as how I defined freedom in that article: It's giving people as much rights as are logically compatible when equally distributed, and when deciding between two incompatible rights (e.g. the right to rape vs. the right to not be raped) a system for choosing the one that gives people self-control (i.e. hands off each other).
| whitetrshsoldier wrote: |
| The "imperative" of Laissez-Faire is that the Government does not intervene in ECONOMIC transactions between individuals. |
Okay. But why speak in terms that stem from an arbitrary division between social interactions and economic interactions? I assume you agree with me that such a division has a tendency to lead to political hypocrisy and irrational philosophies. For instance, consider the person who calls on the nature of the free market to justify the legalization of allegedly voluntary low-wage-paying to unskilled laborers but then rejects the same philosophical principles when dealing with literal prostitution or gambling? Consider the person who uses those arguments of freedom to justify the legalization of drugs and speech (like flag burning) and prohibition of involuntary arranged marriage but then rejects those same argument when it comes to minimum wages, government imposed price-fixing, government arranged economic trades and other economic issues? Instead of using economic terms like free market and Laissez-Faire, wouldn't we more easily avoid enabling such hypocrisy by using blanket terms like free society and unrestricted individualism? I think it's important to find a way to phrase things such that we do not acknowledge that arbitrary, hypocrisy-enabling division between economic transactions (e.g. health care mandates vs. voluntary employment) and social interactions (e.g. arranged marriages vs. sleeping with and only with whoever you want as long as its mutually voluntary).
To the topic at hand, a lot of the seemingly inherent differences between self-proclaimed socialists and self-proclaimed capitalists fade away when we eliminate the hypocrisy-enabling division between social interactions and economic interactions. This is particularly the case when we compare self-proclaimed stateless socialists with self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists and look for inherent differences besides the choice of terminology and without a hypocritical distinction between social interactions (like sex, marriage, drug parties, boxing clubs, religious practices, etc.) and economic interactions (trading haircuts for massages, traditional employment, giving someone 5 apples you grew in dirt nobody was using for 5 oranges they grew in dirt nobody was using, etc.).
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unrealist42
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 230
Location: City of Dreams
|
| Post: #10 Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Scott wrote: |
To the topic at hand, a lot of the seemingly inherent differences between self-proclaimed socialists and self-proclaimed capitalists fade away when we eliminate the hypocrisy-enabling division between social interactions and economic interactions. This is particularly the case when we compare self-proclaimed stateless socialists with self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists and look for inherent differences besides the choice of terminology and without a hypocritical distinction between social interactions (like sex, marriage, drug parties, boxing clubs, religious practices, etc.) and economic interactions (trading haircuts for massages, traditional employment, giving someone 5 apples you grew in dirt nobody was using for 5 oranges they grew in dirt nobody was using, etc.). |
The difference between stateless socialism and anarcho-capitalism is a simple but profound divide. Socialism puts the rights people first. Capitalism, regardless of the flavor, puts the rights of property first.
Capitalist arguments for property rights are couched in terms of the right of an individual to exercise his or her property to whatever advantage they can gain. While seemingly aligned with the socialist quest for equal individual right it is an argument that gives unequal right to property owners. It is a hijacking of the socialist terminology and ideology of individual right that engenders a social construct of individual striving for advantage without regard to social consequences.
In capitalism social advancement is a byproduct of individuals striving for personal advantage. In socialism social advancement is the result of individuals striving to improve society. It is a profound difference of ideology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 1679
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Post: #11 Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Unrealist42 wrote: |
| Scott wrote: |
To the topic at hand, a lot of the seemingly inherent differences between self-proclaimed socialists and self-proclaimed capitalists fade away when we eliminate the hypocrisy-enabling division between social interactions and economic interactions. This is particularly the case when we compare self-proclaimed stateless socialists with self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists and look for inherent differences besides the choice of terminology and without a hypocritical distinction between social interactions (like sex, marriage, drug parties, boxing clubs, religious practices, etc.) and economic interactions (trading haircuts for massages, traditional employment, giving someone 5 apples you grew in dirt nobody was using for 5 oranges they grew in dirt nobody was using, etc.). |
The difference between stateless socialism and anarcho-capitalism is a simple but profound divide. Socialism puts the rights [of] people first. Capitalism, regardless of the flavor, puts the rights of property first. |
Socialism recognizes the "rights of people". But which rights?
| The Dictionary wrote: |
socialism (ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm)
— n
1. Compare capitalism an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels
2. any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3. (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to need ... |
Socialism first establishes that people have no rights, as you readilly acknowledge, and then establishes what will be right for each individual and what will be wrong.
In reality, Socialism puts the cart before the horse; it recognizes no such thing as the "rights of people". It only seeks to establish for each person which "rights" the collective will impose upon the individual.
So how can you put the "rights of people" first when your basic premise [under Socialism] is that you must be the grantor of rights?
Please explain how a right that never existed until you fabricated it can "benevolently" be conferred it upon other men, if you're putting "rights" first?
In this system, ALL rights come SECOND to those who "create" them.
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unrealist42
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 230
Location: City of Dreams
|
| Post: #12 Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Your mis-characterization of socialism could not be more complete. The problem with your argument is that you put yourself outside the society you inhabit. This is impossible. You use the word society as if it is synonymous with government which it is not.
What Socialism seeks to do is define rights in the context of where we find ourselves. Since we do not find ourselves alone in our cave but among other people gathered together for mutual benefit it would make sense to seek a definition of rights that conforms to that context.
So, having surveyed the situation, it becomes apparent that if individuals are able to use force to gain advantage that is not mutual the gathering of people together can be distorted by their imposition and institutions like serfdom and slavery, starvation through unemployment, and other inequities result.
That if mutual benefit is no longer provided by gathering together the people would have incentive to gather together elsewhere if they can or to seek to change the current situation to that of mutual advantage. To not expect this is insane.
It is from these observations that the idea that rights must belong to the group and the right of the individual made subservient to them arises. It is not an unreasonable position in light of observation.
It is also not unreasonable to expect that people will take up such a position and fight for it.
In reality there is no such thing as rights, for anyone. What rights that exist, even in imaginations, have been grabbed from tyrants by force and forcefully defended.
Make no mistake about it. Rights are a bloody battlefield and only exist through incessant war. War against tyrants intent on taking them away and intellectual war against their idealogical lackeys who spout great expositions on the inviolable rights of property that will, in the end, make everyone property and grind them into dust.
Rights are not something that can be gained by appeals to higher powers. Rights are not something that can be gained through owning some small piece of land. Rights are not something inherent in either man of the world he inhabits. Rights are something must be taken and defended at every turn.
Unless rights are equal, the same for everyone, not only in rhetoric but result, there is no such thing as rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3868
|
| Post: #13 Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I agree with you on every point,Unrealist42, and for me,you have put the cause of socialism into a religious perspective, which is where I think it belongs, because religion is the formalisation of a society's ethics.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 1679
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Post: #14 Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Unrealist42 wrote: |
In reality there is no such thing as rights, for anyone.What rights that exist, even in imaginations, have been grabbed from tyrants by force and forcefully defended.
Make no mistake about it. Rights are a bloody battlefield and only exist through incessant war. War against tyrants intent on taking them away and intellectual war against their idealogical lackeys who spout great expositions on the inviolable rights of property that will, in the end, make everyone property and grind them into dust.
Rights are not something that can be gained by appeals to higher powers. Rights are not something that can be gained through owning some small piece of land. Rights are not something inherent in either man of the world he inhabits. Rights are something must be taken and defended at every turn.
Unless rights are equal, the same for everyone, not only in rhetoric but result, there is no such thing as rights. |
Um, I said ...
| whitetrshsoldier wrote: |
Socialism first establishes that people have no rights, as you readilly acknowledge, and then establishes what will be right for each individual and what will be wrong.
In reality, Socialism puts the cart before the horse; it recognizes no such thing as the "rights of people". It only seeks to establish for each person which "rights" the collective will impose upon the individual.
So how can you put the "rights of people" first when your basic premise [under Socialism] is that you must be the grantor of rights?
Please explain how a right that never existed until you fabricated it can "benevolently" be conferred it upon other men, if you're putting "rights" first?
In this system, ALL rights come SECOND to those who "create" them |
Then you said that I mischaracterized?
You admit that rights don't exist, then say that rights are "... something that must be TAKEN and DEFENDED at every turn".
So which is it ... do they or don't they exist, and if they do, then what is really the most important thing to a socialist society; is it the "rights" of people, or those who "ESTABLISH THOSE 'RIGHTS'"?
In your system, it is the Tyrant who comes first. Because without a Tyrant to TAKE rights in order to give them to others, you recognize no such thing!
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1710
|
| Post: #15 Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Unrealist42 wrote: |
| Socialism puts the rights people first. Capitalism, regardless of the flavor, puts the rights of property first. |
Do you have a source for that statement?
In any case, I think it is incoherent as worded. Nobody is asserting that property has rights. People may disagree about what so-called natural rights all people have or about what rights all people would have in a truly, completely free society. So-called property rights are a type of right that people allegedly have.
I think many self-described supporters of freedom, both self-described socialists and self-described capitalists, needlessly have their individual political ideals allow initiations of violence based on attempts to control tangible, natural property whether this attempt to appropriate natural resources and/or products derived by the combination of natural resources with human labor is done by a form of mob rule, majoritarianism, corporatism, plutocracy or whatever. To that end, I agree with what my favorite writer, the anarchist Voltairine de Cleyre wrote: "...any man who must wait the complicated working of a mass of unseen powers before he may engage in the productive labor necessary to get his food is the last thing but a free man." This is a powerful criticism of almost all forms of self-described socialism and self-described capitalism, even those that claim to be stateless.
In her essay Direct Action she also wrote, "There is one common struggle against those who have appropriated the earth, the money, and the machines." I think that is a way of saying there is a common struggle against both what is sometimes called capitalism and what is sometimes called socialism. Socialism, including self-described stateless socialism, is in my opinion just as inherently guilty and inherently not guilty of allowing one class of people to dominate another via control of natural resources, i.e. property, as self-described anarcho-capitalism.
| Unrealist42 wrote: |
| In capitalism social advancement is a byproduct of individuals striving for personal advantage. In socialism social advancement is the result of individuals striving to improve society. It is a profound difference of ideology. |
Again, do you have a source for this claim that those things are inherent qualities of self-described stateless socialism and self-described anarcho-capitalism?
In any case, any political theory that isn't based on the presence of mutually beneficial interactions is dangerously foolish, IMO. As Proudhon, the first person to call himself an anarchist, wrote, "liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order." So I don't see how this is an inherent difference between self-described stateless socialism and self-described anarcho-capitalism. Some members of both categories may be willing to sacrifice liberty for the promise of order or security as an alleged means of eventually getting liberty, which like Proudhon I think is a mistake. Some members of both categories may realize that liberty, order, security and shared prosperity entail each other insofar as liberty is recognized as the best source of all of them.
| whitetrshsoldier wrote: |
| Socialism puts the cart before the horse; it recognizes no such thing as the "rights of people". It only seeks to establish for each person which "rights" the collective will impose upon the individual. |
What if I said capitalism puts the cart before the horse; it recognizes no such thing as the "rights of people". It only seeks to establish for each person which "rights" the collective will impose upon the individual? Are you sure that is something stateless socialism, as proposed by self-described stateless socialists, necessarily does? Are you sure it is an inherent difference? Or is it something entailed by what some self-described socialists propose and by what some self-described capitalists propose but not necessarily by either?
For instance, consider my analogy of what I see as statism caused poverty. What would you say about a self-described laissez-faire capitalist who would say my pretend killing of people breathing my property--all the air in the world--is not an infringement of freedom? Really, how different is that than if a self-described socialist government claimed to own all the air on behalf of the collective and controls people that way? I don't think either philosophy is inherently guilty of what the other claims of it, nor is either one inherently innocent of the same flaw as each likes to pretend.
***
Let's not get bogged down in equivocations resulting from the word rights. If we insist on using the word right, then let's phrase the question so that equivocations and terminological disputes about the word 'rights' are avoided, such as: Hypothetically, what uninfringed rights would people necessarily have in a truly, completely free society? And how, if at all, would a self-described stateless socialist's answer to that question inherently differ from a self-described laissez-faire capitalist's answer?
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
