Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of markuzick
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - markuzick

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
1
General / Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
« on: August 27, 2009, 02:55:59 AM »

It's a damn shame there were only jerk offs like Peikoff following up after Rand, who essentially cemented Rands mistep of Objectivist dogma.

This is an example from my debate with a typical dogmatic "Objectivist:

Quote
Victimless crimes do not constitute a violation of individual rights and there should be no laws of that sort - I suspect that you already know that - so why do you throw it out there? To paint me as a supporter of violating the rights of others... an ad hominem attack?

Are you serious? Do you mean to say that you cannot recognise an argument by analogy? The only implication here is that we agree about victimless crimes in general, but that the minarchists make exceptions to this principle to support their belief in the necessity of the state. It's this idea of a "necessary evil" that I take exception to.

Interpreting an attack on one's beliefs as a personal attack is the litmus test of dogmatism.


Quote
I also do not believe that such a wrong act creates any obligation upon the state to do anything but cease its interference.
So when the state expropriates our means to feed ourselves, it has no obligation to keep us from starvation while we wait for it to cease its interference?

Quote
Your attempt to equate the initiation of violence and absence of a single set of laws for a given jurisdiction with a way to protect individual rights is absurd. A valid state's defense of individual rights is never in conflict with an individual's self-defense of individual rights.


So an enterprise that monopolizes a market by means of threats and violence, as opposed to the consent of its clients, is morally valid, so long as it protects the remaining rights of its subjects? This is the old "The end justifies the means." argument.


Quote
Advocates of anarchy will always attempt to pretend that there can be a market place for violence and see no difference between that and markets for voluntary exchange. They will continue to pretend that it makes sense to say you can have a FREE market without a set of laws protecting individual rights. They will forever persist in describing in painful detail the workings of fantasy self-protection agencies and such, envisioning a make-believe utopia while denying with bald assertions that minarchy could never be possible.
The advocacy of legitimate government does not make me an anarchist.

"The reality is that the state, as it limits or destroys the legitimate government of a civilized society, substituting government by the consent of the individuals that are governed with fiat law, creates chaos, destruction of businesses and people's dreams, violence, terrorism and war, culminating in its own failure and collapse, is the essence of anarchy."

To socialists, the idea that the complexities of the production and distribution of necessities could be accomplished without regulatory supervision of the state must seem to them as much a fantasy as free market civil government does to minarchists.

Your arguments are the classic statist dismissal of the free market. If I make them broader, they go like this:

"Free market advocates forever persist in describing in painful detail the workings of fantasy enterprises and their infinitely intricate relationships between themselves and the final consumer, envisioning a make-believe utopia while denying with bald assertions that successful socialism could never be possible."

2
General / Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
« on: August 26, 2009, 06:54:21 PM »
As for Ayn Rand, I have read 2 of her books but I don't know enough to comment about her Objectivism philosophy.

Atlas Shrugged is the best guide to Objectivism. I highly recommend it. Her nonfiction, with the exception of An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, are inconsistent with respect to the Objectivist moral prohibition of the initiation of the use of force.

Many of her followers have made a dogmatic religion of her every utterance and have a slavish devotion to the state, as long as it's what they interpret as minarchy - I'm not sure if it can really be called true minarchy, as it often involves extensive foreign intervention. - , mimicking her style in expressing their moral outrage at the slightest deviation from doctrine. They can get a bit creepy.

3
General / Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
« on: August 26, 2009, 05:02:45 AM »
Markuzick,

I really appreciate your detailed reply. In my circle, I don't really have many people to talk with these things about. I am studying your comments.

Thanks,
Rob from Arkansas

Please ask or argue about anything you wish, if you don't mind an unconventional perspective. It's my pleasure to engage in dialogue.

4
General / Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
« on: August 24, 2009, 10:40:12 AM »
Sadly, like most it fails to grasp the keen difference between governance and the State, so it assumes a coercive system must be necessary for the propagation of human rights.

I am really pretty new to liberty but I would like to take a stab at the "keen difference between governance and the state" Please, tell me if I am missing something here.

I can see a distinction where a single individual can 'govern' his own personal life, liberty and property to not be exceeded by real opportunities and limitations. I think it is impossible for one individual to inflict coercive action against oneself.

Actually, you could, by contract, agree to rules and their enforcement by a governing entity, of which you are a consenting client or principle, by forceful or coercive means.

You can also, as an individual, voluntarily place yourself into a situation where the actions required for your survival are coerced by the circumstances purposely created by yourself: e.g., jumping into deep water or climbing part way down a rock-face.

Quote
The opposite is true in reference to collectives, 'the state' or 'governance' is by definition an outside force (outside of you personally).  If 'it' acts upon your life, liberty or property against your will, you are being coerced against.


You're conflating the state with governance. The state is only a type of governace; one without moral legitimacy.

Quote
Otherwise you are 'with the force' or a 'voluntary member of the collective' and you are not necessarily being governed but are actually acting in concert with others, these others being referred to as 'state' or 'government.' This applies even if you have arranged to have a directorship over some aspect of your life, liberty or property.
 

Well - you are being governed - as in controlled - either with or without your consent. If it's by your consent, then it's government by the consent of the governed.

Quote
The moment any collective acts against your life, liberty or property without your consent, you are being coerced against.  

Actually, if they act, then they are using aggressive force. Coercion is using the threat of force to cause you to behave in some manner.

Quote
A coercive system destroys rights inherently and therefore cannot possibly cause the propagation of rights.

Force and coercion are necessary for the defense of rights, whether used by individuals or groups. It's only their aggressive application that violates rights.

Quote
I think the best we can arrive at is a  (freely opt-in only) collective of individuals protecting their own and collectively the lives, liberty and property of others.

That's right.







5
General / Re: 8-21-09 show: Objectivism: Ayn Rand, Ian Freeman
« on: August 24, 2009, 09:34:19 AM »
Ian's off base since he's never been able to make a single sentence of his own ideas stick. First and foremost, Randism is based on Aristotleanism, so it can be said to be more or less in league with Thomism and other Aristotle-based philosophical traditions. Sadly, like most it fails to grasp the keen difference between governance and the State, so it assumes a coercive system must be necessary for the propagation of human rights. Which is why I call myself a Post-Randian/Objectivist


I agree with the above, except for the word "coercive" which should be replaced with "aggressive" as all governance is inherently dependent upon force and coercion for legitimate defense.

Any government that can rightfully claim moral legitimacy must, as a minimum requirement, base this legitimacy on the right to self government and so it must be an extension of self government.

This is the idea that the government of organizations is based upon contract. This is not the collectivist concept of the "social contract", but a contract that's based upon the consent of the individual - the only form of binding contract that is morally legitimate.

The state, by its aggressive nature, must of necessity, destroy legitimate government, replacing it with government by decree, the governance of bullies and tyrants, representing an anarchy of sorts, as it institutes the unlawful "laws" of the whims of the powerful, dressing itself in the "emperors new clothes" of false legitimacy. Ultimately, the corrupting incentives of fiat rule cause the state to degenerate into a mob of all against all, inventing enemies to scapegoat for its own failings, both at home and abroad, culminating in its collapse into civil war and anarchy.

A principled minarchy is a contradiction in terms. Minarchy represents the substitution of moral principle with the"pragmatic rule of thumb", that liberty is desirable, as long as it is administered by a "benevolent tyrant". We may as well be talking about a monarchy run by a "benevolent king", as it would probably be more practical.

There is a virtue to minarchy though, in that it represents the final stage of the state before, not ceasing to exist, but its transformation into legitimate government.

6
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: August 11, 2009, 05:22:11 AM »


Quote
Then you have no reason to suppose that a hypothetical God could have created a more perfect human existence.

Quote
Why couldn't I? I said if there was some all knowing god it wouldn't mean they couldn't. Does god have to be good? Does he have to be neutral? Evil? Does he care or is he selfish? Is he like a child wielding the power we envision god having? Does god even exist? I'm saying there is so much we dont know we really can't say either way. We are compromised do only understanding the connection of synapses that tell us the reality around us. Even that could be misleading.

There is no evidence that convinces me that God exists. Even he does, then he cannot be supernatural, but merely the creator of life as we know it and maybe portions of the world we live in. If God is wise and loving, then it wouldn't really matter; he would set life or its preconditions in motion and then allow it to act according to its nature, without interference.

You have only one possible rational standard of value: Life; specifically: your life. There is no other mode of conscious existence that could have any meaningful value to you. If, somehow, you could trade what you are for some other existence where you could be conscious, but without any needs or dangers, you would be cheated. You would cease to exit as a person and all the things that you value would lose their meaning. It would be like living an eternity in total depression; not something you would expect from a worthy God.

Quote
Of course I can imagine a more intelligent, longer lived, animal than Man as well as one with greater and more numerous types of perception, but who's to say that that isn't Man's evolutionary destiny and that this isn't a hypothetical God's plan?

Quote
Thats not it I'm saying you can't possibly understand the existence outside of yours. It doesnt mean you have to be an animal with a long life span or better qualities to survival. It means you can't comprehend what it would be like to be in the shoes of some other existence. A plant? A cell? What is existence and life really? What is reality? Think outside the box and consider that you really know nothing. Our whole life could be a facade.

It's not, but if it were, then it's a truly great one, if you take the effort to both live it and appreciate it.


Quote
Man is a work in progress

Quote
Really? You know this how? Life as we know is just existence in progress yet it always recedes into nothing. Maybe god just views us as cable tv. Who the fuck knows really?

The record of evolution of life and, more recently, of human progress and civilization is nothing less than staggering in its beauty and greatness. Who cares if there's a creator watching. Whatever existence is and however long it lasts, just enjoy it, while you can.

Quote
A perfect and loving God would no doubt, not only create the kind of Man whose pleasure and happiness derives from the exercise of his mental and physical faculties for survival, procreation as well as discovering the form of morality that is proper to his nature, but create a Man that could become his own perfecter, becoming the master of his own evolution.

Quote
Are you talking about a perfect species? Whats the perfect existence? We thrive off of the happy chemical releases from our brain. Synapses telling us what we see and feel. Everything from the cellular level to the possibilities of the unknown. Saying without a doubt that god, the big bang or anything else created life is ignorant imo. as well as saying that this existence is the best that could be experienced.

I judge what I see by my own values. If these values are proper, then they are inherent to my nature. It is impossible for someone to rationally hold any other values than what his nature requires. By my standard of value, this is the best possible universe. No other standard can have meaning for me.


Quote
Life is an end in itself. The purpose and reward of life is in the process of living itself.  You may plan for the future, but never forget to live in the moment.


Quote
Yea you live in the moment but this moment is insignificant like the ant in your backyard. Can you imagine ceasing to exist? those memories and moments don't matter cuz they dont exist anymore... You are nothing. Nowhere with no memories. Like it never happened. Never effecting the reality around you. No remniscing. No emotions. Nothingness as time continues never ending.

While still living, we can care about what happens to others after we die, but, yes, once we die, nothing matters to us anymore. That's why there's no reason to worry about it and all the more reason to savor life while we still have it.

7
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: August 10, 2009, 01:44:58 AM »
I don't really know and I'm not trying to propose that it would be that way. I just meant that we can't possibly comprehend the vastness of space and reality. This is the only life we know and the only existence we experience.

Then you have no reason to suppose that a hypothetical God could have created a more perfect human existence.

Quote
Not like we can stray from one existence to another. Can you understand how your cells communicate and why they do? Can we truly understand it's existence? We only know what we've tested around us which doesn't always prove to be right. How could we know that there couldn't be any better existence that might be more preferable to ours?

Of course I can imagine a more intelligent, longer lived, animal than Man as well as one with greater and more numerous types of perception, but who's to say that that isn't Man's evolutionary destiny and that this isn't a hypothetical God's plan?

A perfect and loving God would no doubt, not only create the kind of Man whose pleasure and happiness derives from the exercise of his mental and physical faculties for survival, procreation as well as discovering the form of morality that is proper to his nature, but create a Man that could become his own perfecter, becoming the master of his own evolution.

Man is a work in progress and as Man becomes seemingly Godlike in his own right, the "problem of evil" will persist. The day that this problem is "solved", if it ever came, would be the end of everything worth living for. That is the day that Man would truly be one with God in all his safe and boring drabness and if he had any love for his remembrance of the once noble spirit his progenitors, he might set the conditions for a new cycle of evolution to begin. God could then watch and have a vicarious  life through his new creations.


Quote
Does life have any purpose at all? What do we really effect? 100 years? 120? The concept of time has no end.  All our memories whether it be full of happiness, sadness, or a mixture of both.... Who remembers them? If you die are you reborn? Do you roam as a spirit for eternity? Do you become recycled into the atmosphere once again? What about those hardships and goals you work so hard to achieve? How could any of it matter or have purpose? Would you effect existence around you 700 years later? What about 2000? If you die and have no memories... no thoughts.... just ceasing to exist... it doesnt really mean anything.

Life is an end in itself. The purpose and reward of life is in the process of living itself.  You may plan for the future, but never forget to live in the moment.

8
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: August 09, 2009, 06:48:30 AM »

Quote
If you were God, then how would you improve the human condition, through the reduction or elimination of evils, in such a way as not to destroy the value of what it means to be human? I posit that there is no way for God to do such a thing without destroying the value of human life itself. Only Man himself, through the use of his God or nature given faculties, not God, can improve the quality of human existence. If it were my turn to be God, I wouldn't dare touch a thing.

I think that it's possible to create better conditions for life without taking away from the value and enjoyment. What it is I dont know since there are an infinite number of possibilities that could be dreamt of. After all the vastness of existence is incomprehensible.

You are proposing the possibility of a kind of "life" whose fundamental values and pleasurable rewards for seeking and attaining them, are not based upon survival. There would be no need to eat, procreate, clean, cloth or shelter our bodies; and no need to think of ways to do these things and how to cooperate with others in finding better ways to do them without hurting one-another in the process.

You also seem to be saying that if there was a loving God, he would wipe out life as we know it and replace it with this new kind of life. What could this new life be?  Would it even have any purpose or goals in its existence? On what basis would it merit or even need pleasure or happiness? Could you even call it life? Do you find the prospect of such a life in any way desirable or preferable to your life?

Any ideas? If there's an infinite number of possibilities, surely you can think of one.


9
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: August 08, 2009, 01:52:27 AM »
Quote
I have more respect for an open minded theist, whose belief I reject, than a dogmatist whose beliefs coincide more closely with mine.

Quote
I try to be open minded and i'm always willing to listen to evidence. Hence why I asked. Perception and feelings don't count as evidence.

That was an opinion about types of people in general that I was sharing with you, not an implication of anything negative about you at all. I'm sorry if you got that impression.


Quote
While this gives Mankind his greater adaptability and allows Mankind to become the dominant animal on earth, it also means that Mankind, like a child, must learn from his mistakes; we have no built in instinct for what's good or bad for our well being and happiness, except for those instincts that we acquire though our acquired beliefs and values; hence there is unavoidable confusion and chaos that comes with the liberty to make choices.

Quote
Of course that's why we strive to create order and learn whats best but that doesn't mean there isn't chaos.

If you re-read the quote, you'll see that I agreed that there is chaos, but that its cause is the inherent human characteristic of having the liberty to make mistakes on a scale that is denied to other animals.


Quote
This is what's known as the problem of evil. The problem of evil is a very popular, but fallacious argument against the existence of God.
Without the struggle for survival life would have no value or meaning. A world without evil would be a world without life. If God made Man to be a being with perfect instinctual knowledge and immune to pain or death, then what challenges would there be? Man would be just be God's puppet; barely even a robot. What obstacles could he overcome? There would be no pain, but pleasure, if it even existed, would be one dimensional like sweetness without the contrasting notes of sourness and bitterness. Happiness, without the memory of sadness, loneliness and loss, would have no poignancy, but be a vague vegetative stupor. How could one even feel satisfaction or pride in any achievement that required no effort or pain? Could it even be called an achievement?
God, if he really loved Man, would leave him free to make his own mistakes; find his own values, create his own morality. He would not give commandments nor create miracles or interfere in any way. A loving God wouldn't protect us from ourselves.  If there is a God, then he did a perfect job.

Quote
What I meant is IF there is a god I wouldn't worship someone like that. I understand the idea of struggling to achieve great things in life and working towards something to be proud of. There are so many people who are just a victim of circumstance though. Who have no choice and control over there situation. It's nice to say you can do this or that with your life but you're only capable of doing so much with the tools and opportunities presented to you. I've dealt with plenty of shit in my own life but that pales in comparison to those across the globe.  In a world that's full of unfairness, pain, and suffering it is far from perfect. Of course if I had no emotions maybe I'd believe otherwise.

The risk of tragedy, suffering and pain is the price we pay for the opportunity of being living, intelligent beings and while there are many natural evils that may overtake us, by far, the greatest and most numerous of these evils are the one that men inflict upon themselves and one-another. Still, there is great joy in the life of even the shortest lived and most unfortunate among us in the exercise and development of our physical and cognitive faculties that are required for our proper survival as human beings.

If you were God, then how would you improve the human condition, through the reduction or elimination of evils, in such a way as not to destroy the value of what it means to be human? I posit that there is no way for God to do such a thing without destroying the value of human life itself. Only Man himself, through the use of his God or nature given faculties, not God, can improve the quality of human existence. If it were my turn to be God, I wouldn't dare touch a thing.

10
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: August 07, 2009, 10:15:34 PM »
Quote
If there is current evidence available for some creator then by all means I'd love to see it presented.

There is evidence that some people may, within the context of their limited knowledge and upbringing, believe to support the idea of God. I believe that they are mistaken. That's why I'm an atheist.

I have more respect for an open minded theist, whose belief I reject, than a dogmatist whose beliefs coincide more closely with mine.

Quote
Just because the world around us is governed by univeral laws doesnt mean life isn't chaotic. You can always have a different result outside of the norm with any event. In society, with our egocentric predicament and our fickle nature life is far from orderly.


Most animal's behaviors are governed primarily by inherited instinct. Man's behavior is governed by his beliefs, his values and his morality.

While this gives Mankind his greater adaptability and allows Mankind to become the dominant animal on earth, it also means that Mankind, like a child, must learn from his mistakes; we have no built in instinct for what's good or bad for our well being and happiness, except for those instincts that we acquire though our acquired beliefs and values; hence there is unavoidable confusion and chaos that comes with the liberty to make choices.

Quote
Seeing other countries and the worst that life has to offer I can't believe there is any creator. If there was, "it" abandoned us a long time ago or just didn't give a shit. Either way I couldn't worship them.

This is what's known as the problem of evil. The problem of evil is a very popular, but fallacious argument against the existence of God.

Without the struggle for survival life would have no value or meaning. A world without evil would be a world without life. If God made Man to be a being with perfect instinctual knowledge and immune to pain or death, then what challenges would there be? Man would be just be God's puppet; barely even a robot. What obstacles could he overcome? There would be no pain, but pleasure, if it even existed, would be one dimensional like sweetness without the contrasting notes of sourness and bitterness. Happiness, without the memory of sadness, loneliness and loss, would have no poignancy, but be a vague vegetative stupor. How could one even feel satisfaction or pride in any achievement that required no effort or pain? Could it even be called an achievement?

God, if he really loved Man, would leave him free to make his own mistakes; find his own values, create his own morality. He would not give commandments nor create miracles or interfere in any way. A loving God wouldn't protect us from ourselves.  If there is a God, then he did a perfect job.

11

Quote
I do not believe that the solution is as easy as you make it out to be: Firstly, people can opt-out of social networks and no well-meaning private individual can simply intervene in another family's affairs.

If one opts out of civilized society in order to engage in what some see as abusive behavior, then they also give up the protections that come from the participation with any of the governing bodies that comprise civilization. They become vulnerable to well armed campaigns waged by organized charitable private agencies that are devoted to the protection of the rights of the defenseless.

If they hire private police and a private court to "protect their way of life", they would need to conform to at least the bare minimum of what a voluntary society would judge to be defensible behavior and in so doing, would be reintegrated back into civilization.

The burden of proof and liability would be on private policing agencies and so the abuse and corruption, that's typical of state policing agencies, would not survive for long in a system of free market government.


It sounds like you believe in the social contract theory.

Certainly not! Why would you say so?

I believe in a society where the state doesn't exist; that is based on voluntary contract; where governments have no monopoly; where competing civil governments may only rule by the consent of the individual that is governed, not the consent of the collective.

12
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: August 07, 2009, 07:04:41 PM »

Quote
What is life but chaos? The world around you is chaotic.

The world may seem chaotic, but is, in fact, governed by universal laws.

Life is a process that creates its own order amid this seeming chaos.

The human mind, through the process of reason, discovers the nature of these laws, so as to bring about a higher level of self governing order, thereby increasing the quality of life and the chances of survival.

13
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: August 07, 2009, 06:42:48 PM »
What evidence, logic and reason is there to religion?

Which religion? Not all religions are concerned with the concept of God. Even a theological (God based) religion may be based upon evidence and reason. That doesn't mean that the evidence isn't misinterpreted and that the reasoning process isn't faulty.

A sincere adherent to a theology, if he's not dogmatic, is open to a change in his beliefs. I'm sure you've met people who once believed in God, but no longer do.

While many adherents to both theological and non-theological religions may be, to a greater or lesser extent, irrationally dogmatic, there is no rule that requires religions to demand this foolishness.

14

Quote
I do not believe that the solution is as easy as you make it out to be: Firstly, people can opt-out of social networks and no well-meaning private individual can simply intervene in another family's affairs.

If one opts out of civilized society in order to engage in what some see as abusive behavior, then they also give up the protections that come from the participation with any of the governing bodies that comprise civilization. They become vulnerable to well armed campaigns waged by organized charitable private agencies that are devoted to the protection of the rights of the defenseless.

If they hire private police and a private court to "protect their way of life", they would need to conform to at least the bare minimum of what a voluntary society would judge to be defensible behavior and in so doing, would be reintegrated back into civilization.

The burden of proof and liability would be on private policing agencies and so the abuse and corruption, that's typical of state policing agencies, would not survive for long in a system of free market government.

15
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: August 07, 2009, 05:33:06 AM »
Quote
My belief in a Creator is based on my personal observations of the world I live in.  These are the same senses I use to determine for myself (without the need of any "scientists")

Belief in a creator is blind faith. Even though you made a "logical" assumption based on YOUR senses and YOUR observations it's really just one of millions that could be made.  Everything in this world is too complex for our tiny minds to comprehend. As comforting/scary as it would be to believe that there is some entity with the knowledge to understand and create all that we know is a silly conclusion to make just like assuming the big bang is fact. You can't possibly know one way or the other. Even your own senses can lie to you. It's nice to BELIEVE we have the answer though.

Not all faith, even faith in God, is necessarily blind faith. One may think that he has powerful reasons to believe in God and, therefore, have strong confidence (faith) in God's existence.

What makes faith blind, meaning dogmatic, is the closing of one's mind to all evidence, logic and reason that may falsify the religion ( A devotion to a principle, philosophy, or any set of beliefs.) in which one has faith. ( Gene's evasiveness is clear evidence that he has no interest in anything that might cause him to examine his faith; hence he's a dogmatist.)

You make it sound as if nothing is really knowable to our "tiny minds" and if by "knowable", you mean beyond dispute by any possible evidence or logic, that would be true, but wouldn't that kind of dogmatic knowing be evidence of a tiny mind at work? Isn't true knowledge that which we have good evidence and reason to believe and even have faith in, with the proviso that it is subject to the expected refinement, modification or outright falsification that will come with further evidence or subtler interpretation?

Before we can have true knowledge or understanding, we must have faith in ourselves as individuals and as humans; in our ability to grow in skills, understanding and wisdom.

I believe that with faith, almost anything, even achievements unimaginable to us today, are possible.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 31 queries.