100% is not enough: Georgism to its logical conclusion

Paleocon · Dec 11, 2014

The Minimalist said:
I didn't say that. I said the common ancestors of all were hunter-gatherers. In other words, Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve were hunter-gatherers. The evidence for that includes that the number of years it's estimated to have taken to get to our current genetic diversity is many times greater than the oldest evidence of agriculture. I have very strong evidence that you're on the internet right now, so unless you have some sort of Christian V-chip installed you can Google it yourself. Anyway, through your selective responses, this has degenerated into a sort of intelligent design debate, and, no offense, but I'm really not interested in that.

You cite the evidence.

RGacky3 said:
That's what profiting off land is ... basically lending Resources for a HUGE interest ... I mean what percentage of the actual value of their work do the workers get? I tiny perfentage ... it's the same as usury.

No, usury involves selling the use of money apart from its ownership, which is immoral since money is lost when it is used. Since a house or land can be used and yet remain in the possession of the person using it, it is licit to sell the use of such separate from the ownership. Note also that in the Israelite system, people were allowed to sell the use of their land while retaining the permanent ownership of it.

Restoration every Jubilee year IS redistribution ... it goes back to the base Level, i.e. what People started With, the land of their inheretance, meaning the Family farm that the use for themselves, also you had the 10% tax which was Distributed to the poor through the temple, as well as the gleaning and the making of the land common property every 7th year.

No, it's no different than renting the property out until the jubilee year.

Do you want the scripture citations? I haven't just made this up out of thin air.

Sure.

The Minimalist · Dec 11, 2014

RGacky3 said:
Debs was a Christian ....

I didn't bring him up because I thought he was an atheist. I brought him up because he was a non-aligned socialist whom you appear to respect. Your comment was more Shachtman than Debs (apart from misrepresenting my views, of course). But I can appreciate that pictures of Shachtman are harder to come by, so no big deal.

Paleocon said:
No, usury involves selling the use of money apart from its ownership, which is immoral since money is lost when it is used. Since a house or land can be used and yet remain in the possession of the person using it, it is licit to sell the use of such separate from the ownership. Note also that in the Israelite system, people were allowed to sell the use of their land while retaining the permanent ownership of it.

That was Aquinas' rationalization of church stupidity, yes, but it's nonsense. Assuming that the interest on a loan is the price of spending the principle is no more reasonable than assuming that the profit on a wine sale is the price of drinking the wine. Interest itself is not a price; it's the difference between the total price of owning the principle now and the principle itself, repaid later. Rent is just the same; it's the difference between the total price of owning the land now and the land itself, repaid later. The lender wouldn't care if you saved the principle instead of spent it (as long as paid him it and the interest in time), and the lessor wouldn't care if you magically switched the land you leased with identical land (as long as you paid him it and the rent in time).

Paleocon · Dec 11, 2014

The Minimalist said:
That was Aquinas' rationalization of church stupidity, yes, but it's nonsense. Assuming that the interest on a loan is the price of spending the principle is no more reasonable than assuming that the profit on a wine sale is the price of drinking the wine. Interest itself is not a price; it's the difference between the total price of owning the principle now and the principle itself, repaid later. Rent is just the same; it's the difference between the total price of owning the land now and the land itself, repaid later. The lender wouldn't care if you saved the principle instead of spent it (as long as paid him it and the interest in time), and the lessor wouldn't care if you magically switched the land you leased with identical land (as long as you paid him it and the rent in time).

So you're defending usury?

The Minimalist · Dec 11, 2014

Paleocon said:
So you're defending usury?

From being singled out, yes. It's no more unjust than other forms of economic rent, including ground rent. It's only that its injustice is clearer, because it's denominated in the same terms as the resource it ransoms.

Paleocon · Dec 11, 2014

The Minimalist said:
From being singled out, yes. It's no more unjust than other forms of economic rent, including ground rent. It's only that its injustice is clearer, because it's denominated in the same terms as the resource it ransoms.

Well it's not stupid to recognize a difference between things that are used by being used up and things that aren't.

The Minimalist · Dec 11, 2014

Paleocon said:
Well it's not stupid to recognize a difference between things that are used by being used up and things that aren't.

No, it's just stupid to derive an anti-usury theory from that. Again, money is not the only thing that is used by being used up; I gave the example of wine, but I could have named any consumable. Aquinas didn't know about opportunity cost, monopoly markup, or the normal rate of return; so he had no explanation for interest other than the ridiculous "double charging" thesis. For consumables, which aren't denominated in the same terms as their prices, he didn't have to go to such lengths, because he could just assume they were priced fairly, same as he just assumed rents were fair prices.

Paleocon · Dec 11, 2014

The Minimalist said:
No, it's just stupid to derive an anti-usury theory from that. Again, money is not the only thing that is used by being used up; I gave the example of wine, but I could have named any consumable. Aquinas didn't know about opportunity cost, monopoly markup, or the normal rate of return; so he had no explanation for interest other than the ridiculous "double charging" thesis. For consumables, which aren't denominated in the same terms as their prices, he didn't have to go to such lengths, because he could just assume they were priced fairly, same as he just assumed rents were fair prices.

Wine, money, food, and anything else consumed in use would be subject to the same moral principles, it would be immoral to lend wine and demand payment for the amount of time it was in the other person's possession.

Of course any given price price could be unjust, but that's not the point. The point is what types of transactions are categorically unjust.

It's not a matter of Aquinas's ignorance, it's a matter of opportunity costs being foregone by the time payment is made for them. They are not ontologically real.

The Minimalist · Dec 11, 2014

Paleocon said:
Wine, money, food, and anything else consumed in use would be subject to the same moral principles, it would be immoral to lend wine and demand payment for the amount of time it was in the other person's possession.

But interest isn't based on the amount of time the money is in the borrower's possession. It's based on the amount of time he takes to pay for it, same as the markup when you buy something in installments.

Paleocon said:
Of course any given price price could be unjust, but that's not the point. The point is what types of transactions are categorically unjust.

A consensual transaction cannot be unjust, it can only be evidence of injustice. That interest rates (like ground rents) are above cost is certainly evidence of injustice, but you do the borrower no favor when you lock in his lack by outlawing the interest and thus the loan.

Paleocon said:
It's not a matter of Aquinas's ignorance, it's a matter of opportunity costs being foregone by the time payment is made for them. They are not ontologically real.

It's my understanding that the concept of opportunity cost originated with Bastiat in the 19th century, but if you can direct me to Aquinas discussing it, by all means do. Anyway, the ontological unreality argument fails because it's applicable to any resources committed prior to the completion of the exchange: indeed, we need look no further than the loan's principle itself to find a resource whose best alternative use has been foregone by the time it's paid for; and as for rent, a house's tenant doesn't pay it until long after the loss of the opportunity to use the land and other factors of house construction otherwise.

Manny · Dec 11, 2014

RGacky3 said:
umm ... ok ... and that has what to do With the post you quoted?

It's an indictment of the concept of non-ownership by individuals, and the effect this had on the longevity of the Soviet Union. Lack of ownership brought about its eventual collapse. I gave more detailed information earlier in the thread.

In a nutshell, the economic innovation of the communists was achieved by forcing those held in the Gulag system to give up their very lives. The Soviet Union is built upon their corpses. Their flesh made into mortar, their bones into lath...

The Minimalist · Dec 11, 2014

Manny said:
In a nutshell, the economic innovation of the communists was achieved by forcing those held in the Gulag system to give up their very lives. The Soviet Union is built upon their corpses. Their flesh made into mortar, their bones into lath...

...their curly black hair into White House columns.

Paleocon · Dec 11, 2014

The Minimalist said:
But interest isn't based on the amount of time the money is in the borrower's possession. It's based on the amount of time he takes to pay for it, same as the markup when you buy something in installments.

The point being?

A consensual transaction cannot be unjust, it can only be evidence of injustice. That interest rates (like ground rents) are above cost is certainly evidence of injustice, but you do the borrower no favor when you lock in his lack by outlawing the interest and thus the loan.

Which is nonsense. The easiest way to refute this consent idea, is that that which starts as consensual, can become nonconsensual.

It's my understanding that the concept of opportunity cost originated with Bastiat in the 19th century, but if you can direct me to Aquinas discussing it, by all means do.

The concept of a proton star, which is like a neutron star but made of protons instead of neutrons, was made up a few minutes ago by me. No writings on astronomy in the world refer to it. Does that make all astronomy writings writings written up until now based on ignorance?

Anyway, the ontological unreality argument fails because it's applicable to any resources committed prior to the completion of the exchange: indeed, we need look no further than the loan's principle itself to find a resource whose best alternative use has been foregone by the time it's paid for; and as for rent, a house's tenant doesn't pay it until long after the loss of the opportunity to use the land and other factors of house construction otherwise.

By renting land, the owner suffers a real temporary loss, as he would have the use of the land had he not rented it, by being in possession of it. OTOH, a person who lends money does not, as if he simply kept the money, he would get no gain out of it.

The Minimalist · Dec 12, 2014

Paleocon said:
The point being?

Aquinas had the excuse that he thought interest was based on the amount of time the loan was in the borrower's possession. If you admit that was wrong, what now is your excuse for thinking interest is the price of use?

Paleocon said:
Which is nonsense. The easiest way to refute this consent idea, is that that which starts as consensual, can become nonconsensual.

Yes, either the lender or the borrower may later regret the transaction, but that's true of all sides of all transactions; if interest predicted that the borrower would regret the transaction, he wouldn't consent to it in the first place. Now, if you mean something more along the lines of an ancient society assigning permanent property rights in the first place, I agree; the failure to seek the consent of or even imagine future generations predicts that future generations are the ones who wouldn't consent.

Paleocon said:
The concept of a proton star, which is like a neutron star but made of protons instead of neutrons, was made up a few minutes ago by me. No writings on astronomy in the world refer to it. Does that make all astronomy writings writings written up until now based on ignorance?

Good point.

Paleocon said:
By renting land, the owner suffers a real temporary loss, as he would have the use of the land had he not rented it, by being in possession of it. OTOH, a person who lends money does not, as if he simply kept the money, he would get no gain out of it.

There are several problems with that. First, he would gain liquidity (just as a landlord gains liquidity when he opts not to tie up his property in a lease). Second, keeping the money isn't his only alternative; he could spend it, like the borrower. Third, it's the principle that the lender lends, and "would get no gain out of", not the interest; so why not oppose repayment of the principle as well? Fourth, rent, like other prices, is not determined by just any alternative; it's determined by the best alternative: the best alternative is not owner occupancy, it's not wasting land and money on a tenement building in the first place.

RGacky3 · Dec 12, 2014

Paleocon said:
No, usury involves selling the use of money apart from its ownership, which is immoral since money is lost when it is used. Since a house or land can be used and yet remain in the possession of the person using it, it is licit to sell the use of such separate from the ownership. Note also that in the Israelite system, people were allowed to sell the use of their land while retaining the permanent ownership of it.

Not at all, that's a strange definition of "possession," If I live in a house in the town and other peopel are working my land, it's NO different then usury, the only difference is semantics.

THe same goes for Capital.

No, it's no different than renting the property out until the jubilee year.

I think you're just speaking semantics here ... you don't rent the property out.

Sure.

Leviticus 25:
23 The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants.

RGacky3 · Dec 12, 2014

Manny said:
It's an indictment of the concept of non-ownership by individuals, and the effect this had on the longevity of the Soviet Union. Lack of ownership brought about its eventual collapse. I gave more detailed information earlier in the thread.

In a nutshell, the economic innovation of the communists was achieved by forcing those held in the Gulag system to give up their very lives. The Soviet Union is built upon their corpses. Their flesh made into mortar, their bones into lath...

Except it was ownership by individuals ... it was ownership by the leaders of the soviet union ... there was plenty of ownership in the USSR.

The USSR was NOT putting Things in the commons ... it had nothing to do With what we are talking about.

RGacky3 · Dec 12, 2014

The Minimalist said:
I didn't bring him up because I thought he was an atheist. I brought him up because he was a non-aligned socialist whom you appear to respect. Your comment was more Shachtman than Debs (apart from misrepresenting my views, of course). But I can appreciate that pictures of Shachtman are harder to come by, so no big deal.

I admire Debs for his moral courage and his Christian values and solitarity ... I don't know that much about Chachtman vrs Debs or anything like that.

Paleocon · Dec 12, 2014

The Minimalist said:
Aquinas had the excuse that he thought interest was based on the amount of time the loan was in the borrower's possession. If you admit that was wrong, what now is your excuse for thinking interest is the price of use?

Aquinas knew that the specific money lent was not ever returned. The rental model was in his objections, which were arguments to the contrary of his own position.

Yes, either the lender or the borrower may later regret the transaction, but that's true of all sides of all transactions; if interest predicted that the borrower would regret the transaction, he wouldn't consent to it in the first place. Now, if you mean something more along the lines of an ancient society assigning permanent property rights in the first place, I agree; the failure to seek the consent of or even imagine future generations predicts that future generations are the ones who wouldn't consent.

So can a person withdraw consent? And if not, and all is just so long as it's consensual, can a person sell himself into slavery?

There are several problems with that. First, he would gain liquidity (just as a landlord gains liquidity when he opts not to tie up his property in a lease). Second, keeping the money isn't his only alternative; he could spend it, like the borrower. Third, it's the principle that the lender lends, and "would get no gain out of", not the interest; so why not oppose repayment of the principle as well? Fourth, rent, like other prices, is not determined by just any alternative; it's determined by the best alternative: the best alternative is not owner occupancy, it's not wasting land and money on a tenement building in the first place.

Land is not liquid. And liquidity is only good if it's used for some purpose. The lender has a right to the return of what he lent.

Manny · Dec 12, 2014

RGacky3 said:
Except it was ownership by individuals ... it was ownership by the leaders of the soviet union ... there was plenty of ownership in the USSR.

The USSR was NOT putting Things in the commons ... it had nothing to do With what we are talking about.

The argument that there never as been communism is moot. By its very nature it is more open to exploitation by the elite. That is why in Soviet Russia, there was a vast proletariat whose economy had collapsed to the lowest common denominator, and a small ruling elite vaulted to the highest level of wealth. This is due to dis-empowerment of the people since they have no wealth. As well as apathy, a lack of interest because there is little to be gained personally, and much to be lost by sacrificed. Their political power can be easily removed by creating divisions and partisanship, through extensive use of the media to divide public opinion, and foment distrust. Even distrust in the leadership has its advantages.
The alternative is continual revolution, an idea that seems to solve the problem of consolidation of power but results in economic uncertainty. It weakens the fabric of society. An idea for which Trotsky paid with his life, by the way.
That is why I said, the people are happy to live under a milder form of authoritarianism, accepting some level of economic unfairness in exchange for reasonable prosperity and peace. Not philosophy, not revolution, but bread on the table, and the occasional bottle of beer...

The Minimalist · Dec 12, 2014

Paleocon said:
Aquinas knew that the specific money lent was not ever returned. The rental model was in his objections, which were arguments to the contrary of his own position.

But the specific money being lent out never being returned was the only point on which he disagreed with the rental model. He shared with the rental model the fallacy that the loan is priced as if the money were being rented out (a fallacy you yourself repeated earlier, though you made less effort to distinguish your own position from the rental model) and the consequent fallacy that interest is the price of use. My point is that the latter fallacy is all the more untenable when one sheds the former, and views the loan's price as payment in installments. To go back to wine, if you paid for a bottle of wine in installments, though you would pay a markup, you would not be deceived that you were being "double charged", because the markup wouldn't even have the appearance of relation to the amount of time you possessed the bottle.

Paleocon said:
So can a person withdraw consent? And if not, and all is just so long as it's consensual, can a person sell himself into slavery?

Why not? By any objective measure, chattel-slaves had it better than their counterparts in wage-slavery, a fact that makes perfect economic sense: a chattel-slave's wages (paid in kind, of course) cannot fall below long-term subsistence, because he can make the credible promise to stay with his current employer; a wage-slave's wages can fall to short-term subsistence, because he cannot credibly make that promise. If a wage-slave sells himself into chattel-slavery, he's simply making the best of the bad situation you've imposed on him. Linguet, conservative, put about the same thing rather more eloquently a few centuries ago, though he was more approving of chattel-slavery than I.

Paleocon said:
Land is not liquid. And liquidity is only good if it's used for some purpose. The lender has a right to the return of what he lent.

First, again, that isn't deducible from the lack of purpose of keeping money; it's the principle itself you say the lender has no purpose for, so if anything he doesn't even have a right to the return of that.

Second, again, whether you think the landlord should use the land for some purpose or not is irrelevant. The fact is he doesn't. He's not homeless when his land is being rented, he lives in a mansion across town. So occupying his rental land would be of negative value to him even if we ignored the illiquidity of having to move back out of it before he could make good on his next lease or sale. In other words, the idea of a landlord using his land between tenants, and basing the rent he charges on that use-value, is about as unrealistic as the idea of a capitalist swimming around in his money like Scrooge McDuck between loans, and basing the interest on that use-value.

Finally, hoarding is not only not the only alternative to lending, it's not even the most realistic one; realistically, the capitalist will invest directly what money he doesn't lend.

CycloneWanderer · Dec 12, 2014

Manny said:
I dont know if greed was invented, or came later but that is the problem, which undermines society in any case and which communism does not address. Communism naively believes that by elliminating food, people wil no longer feell hungry. Capitalism on the other hand makes use of greed as a positive motivation. Neither one is perfect...

They may have a point. Dead people feel no hunger.

RGacky3 · Dec 13, 2014

Manny said:
The argument that there never as been communism is moot. By its very nature it is more open to exploitation by the elite. That is why in Soviet Russia, there was a vast proletariat whose economy had collapsed to the lowest common denominator, and a small ruling elite vaulted to the highest level of wealth. This is due to dis-empowerment of the people since they have no wealth. As well as apathy, a lack of interest because there is little to be gained personally, and much to be lost by sacrificed. Their political power can be easily removed by creating divisions and partisanship, through extensive use of the media to divide public opinion, and foment distrust. Even distrust in the leadership has its advantages.
The alternative is continual revolution, an idea that seems to solve the problem of consolidation of power but results in economic uncertainty. It weakens the fabric of society. An idea for which Trotsky paid with his life, by the way.
That is why I said, the people are happy to live under a milder form of authoritarianism, accepting some level of economic unfairness in exchange for reasonable prosperity and peace. Not philosophy, not revolution, but bread on the table, and the occasional bottle of beer...

Wait what? So are you REALLY claiming that the USSR actually made property common? Really?

THat's total nonsense, the STATE which was not democratic, controlled everything, that isn't communism, it's a monopoly of one corporation.

Manny · Dec 13, 2014

RGacky3 said:
Wait what? So are you REALLY claiming that the USSR actually made property common? Really?

THat's total nonsense, the STATE which was not democratic, controlled everything, that isn't communism, it's a monopoly of one corporation.

No I am stating that the pure ideal of communism becomes the USSR. That is 'Georgism to its logical conclusion.'

The Minimalist · Dec 13, 2014

RGacky3 said:
Wait what? So are you REALLY claiming that the USSR actually made property common? Really?

He guesses that they tried ideal communism, and it didn't work, so they switched to slavery. I tried to tell him the true history, but he isn't accepting facts that don't coincide with his preconceived notions at this time. Just a heads up.

Manny · Dec 13, 2014

The Minimalist said:
He guesses that they tried ideal communism, and it didn't work, so they switched to slavery. I tried to tell him the true history, but he isn't accepting facts that don't coincide with his preconceived notions at this time. Just a heads up.

Every communist country in the world is the same, they are all authoritarian dictatorships in which common people are oppressed by a central government with a powerful military that executes its own people. They live in abject squalor. That is the true history.
What you have shown is a "fantasy", an ideal that cannot happen. I've given the reasons why, twice now. Once for you and once for RGacky3.
Because of corrupt human nature. Sorry if it disappoints, but that's life.
Since you've now turned the argument towards ridicule, there is no debate.

The Minimalist · Dec 14, 2014

Manny said:
Every communist country in the world is the same, they are all authoritarian dictatorships in which common people are oppressed by a central government with a powerful military that executes its own people. They live in abject squalor. That is the true history.

That's not a history at all, it's a snapshot. A true history would speak of immiseration, not misery. And yet you have failed to even attempt to show pre-Communist prosperity in any of the (1) nominally Communist countries you've commented on. Misery is a cause of revolution, so to speak of misery in a Communist country is to tell what Communists have been telling for centuries. The scientific way to go about it, if it is even possible to go about it scientifically when to have a Communist revolution is to have economic and if possible military war declared on one's country by the US and her proxies, including everything not nailed down being stolen away in capital flight before the "experiment" can even begin, would be to examine "differences in differences", in this case the change in the poverty rate in the nominally Communist country relative to that in non-Communist countries in a similar state at the time of the revolution. But to offer as evidence, for example, that a Cuban lives "in abject squalor", is to reveal that you either know nothing of the still more miserable condition of the poor in the rest of Latin America, or know nothing of the scientific method.

Manny · Dec 14, 2014

The Minimalist said:
to offer as evidence, for example, that a Cuban lives "in abject squalor", is to reveal that you either know nothing of the still more miserable condition of the poor in the rest of Latin America, or know nothing of the scientific method.

Fine, let's look at Cuba as an example.

Pre-Revolution
Before Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. Cuba's capital, Havana, was a "glittering and dynamic city". The country's economy in the early part of the century, fueled by the sale of sugar to the United States, had grown dynamically. Cuba ranked 5th in the hemisphere in per capita income, 3rd in life expectancy, 2nd in per capita ownership of automobiles and telephones, and 1st in the number of television sets per inhabitant. Cuba's literacy rate, 76%, was the fourth highest in Latin America. Cuba also ranked 11th in the world in the number of doctors per capita. Several private clinics and hospitals provided services for the poor. Cuba's income distribution compared favorably with that of other Latin American societies. A thriving middle class, according to PBS, held the promise of prosperity and social mobility. According to Cuba historian Louis Perez of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, "Havana was then what Las Vegas has become."
Sounds like they were doing alright to me.

Post-Revolution
Within months of taking control, Castro moved to consolidate his power by brutally marginalizing other resistance groups and figures and imprisoning and executing opponents and dissident former supporters. As the revolution became more radical and continued its persecution of those who did not agree with its direction, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island, eventually forming a large exile community in the United States.

Fidel Castro quickly purged political opponents from the administration. Loyalty to Castro and the revolution became the primary criterion for all appointments. Mass organisations such as labor unions that opposed the revolutionary government were made illegal. By the end of 1960, all opposition newspapers had been closed down and all radio and television stations had come under state control. Teachers and professors found to have involvement with counter-revolution were purged. In September 1960, a system of neighborhood watch networks, known as Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, was created.

Militant anti-Castro groups carried out armed attacks and set up guerrilla bases in Cuba's mountainous regions. Castro's government ultimately defeated the rebels with its superior numbers and firepower, and executed those who surrendered.

The standard of living in the 1970s was "extremely spartan" and discontent was rife. Fidel Castro admitted the failures of economic policies in a 1970 speech. The country faced a severe economic downturn, resulting in effects such as food and fuel shortages. The government did not accept American donations of food, medicines, and cash until 1993. On 5 August 1994, state security dispersed protesters in a spontaneous protest in Havana.

Cuba took limited free market-oriented measures to alleviate severe shortages of food, consumer goods, and services. These steps included allowing some self-employment in certain retail and light manufacturing sectors, the legalization of the use of the US dollar in business, and the encouragement of tourism. Cuba has developed a unique urban farm system to compensate for the end of food imports from the Soviet Union.

The leadership of Cuba has called for reforms in the country's agricultural system. In 2008, Raúl Castro began enacting agrarian reforms to boost food production, as at that time 80% of food was imported. The reforms enacted are aimed at expanding land usage and increasing efficiency.

In 2010, Cubans were allowed to build their own houses. According to Raul Castro, they will be able to improve their houses with this new permission, but the government will not endorse these new houses or improvements.

On August 2, 2011, The New York Times reported Cuba as reaffirming their intent to legalize "buying and selling" of private property before the year's end. According to experts, the private sale of property could "transform Cuba more than any of the economic reforms announced by President Raúl Castro's government". It will cut more than one million state jobs, including party bureaucrats who resist the changes. The new economic reforms effectively created a new economic system, referred by some as the "New Cuban Economy".

The ideas you are promoting are flawed and outdated. Not scientific facts, not real-world history and truth, but fantasy and lies.

100% is not enough: Georgism to its logical conclusion

Paleocon

The Minimalist

Member

Paleocon

The Minimalist

Member

Paleocon

The Minimalist

Member

Paleocon

The Minimalist

Member

Manny

Nay Sayer

The Minimalist

Member

Paleocon

The Minimalist

Member

RGacky3

RGacky3

RGacky3

Paleocon

Manny

Nay Sayer

The Minimalist

Member

CycloneWanderer

RGacky3

Manny

Nay Sayer

The Minimalist

Member

Manny

Nay Sayer

The Minimalist

Member

Manny

Nay Sayer