What is Anarchy?

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, when you have evidence that people have suddenly decided that they don't like boards.ie, make sure and let me know.

I have presented my consumer review. I dislike the attitude of some of the moderators. I no I am not alone. I have no stats. Boards.ie can take my criticism or not. It would would be pretty stupiud to ignor opinions from consumers.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats not what I said.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats classical liberalism. I posted about anarchy, which is a topic little discussed over these 11 pages.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Roads existed before central governments. You can look up on the history of roads if you wish but I'm not going to entertain the idea that we need the government for roads. Courts and a military maybe. But not roads. For starters as a tax payer I have stock in my local road. Voting in local government doesnt go against my anarchism. I'm against states not governments. Look up how roads were made and then tell me you need govenrment for it.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I dont lie rules and I know there is at least 1,825 people in Ireland that agree with me. The fact that the majority accept rules doesnt make it moral or practical to have these non-flexible rules.

Valmont wrote: »

Boards.ie has reasonably consistent application of clearly stated policies, rules, and forum charters, as well as private and public avenues for redressing complaints. Therefore, the allegation that moderators exist to be arbitrary and capricious bullies is nonsense—such a moderator would not last half an hour on this site.

I didnt say that either. I'm not arguing with you on things I didnt say.

Valmont wrote: »

Also if you don't like the rules you can go and post on one of the many other discussion websites. That tells me that boards.ie, rules included, is flourishing in a market environment.

Now imagine if boards.ie was a state controlled entity and the only one available to Irish citizens. Denerick and DF would have to hand over 40% of their thanks to other less-thanked members.

No we're at last getting into some good discusion. Thats general jist of anarchy. We want daily choice on rules we have to follow.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hazlittle

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I posted a feedback and it was closed.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yep there is an overlap. Whats your point? Anarchists believe in spontaneous order. That was stated in the information given.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Assuming an anarchist systems allows for property rights, as most anarchist systems did, who ever owns the road controls the speed. Very simple. Local roads thus a local council. We can apply a simple rule(your council your choice of rules) in order to drive on the road you need insurance. Insurance companies wont give insurance to people without driving certs. It wont be illegal to drive without a cert but no sensible person would allow you to drive on their road without either a cert or paying a massive fee.

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

I have presented my consumer review. I dislike the attitude of some of the moderators. I no I am not alone. I have no stats. Boards.ie can take my criticism or not. It would would be pretty stupiud to ignor opinions from consumers.

It would be pretty stupid to conform to the views of a small minority of consumers, if to do so would alienate the majority.

I dont lie rules and I know there is at least 1,825 people in Ireland that agree with me. The fact that the majority accept rules doesnt make it moral or practical to have these non-flexible rules.

The fact that there are four and a have million people in Ireland that don't agree with you means it's not moral or practical to get rid of rules just because you don't like them.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I posted a feedback and it was closed.

I can't find any posts by you on the Feedback forum.

Insurance companies wont give insurance to people without driving certs.

Who issues the certs?

silverharp

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who issues the certs?

The Libertarian & anarchists would agree that competing private agencies can issue certs. It works in other areas of life today , education , professional qualifications etc. A centralised Licence system in Ireland's case has probably held back driver training?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

It would be pretty stupid to conform to the views of a small minority of consumers, if to do so would alienate the majority. The fact that there are four and a have million people in Ireland that don't agree with you means it's not moral or practical to get rid of rules just because you don't like them.

I can't find any posts by you on the Feedback forum. Who issues the certs?

I stated my opinion. You asked fir sort of proof that I was in the majority. I never claimed to be in the majority. I gave my opinion and I'm not tolerating any cheek form you any longer.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No. If you cant handle Google than you're not really fit for anything else.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Never said my system is Utopian. The current system doesnt solve the problem as you admit so what wrong with trying another system?

sponsoredwalk

Hazlittle wrote: »

Never said my system is Utopian. The current system doesnt solve the problem as you admit so what wrong with trying another system?

I haven't really read about what the system you're proposing is...

Discussing the rules of the road is fine but you'd think this triviality would fall
into place naturally with respect to the broader picture.

I'm not trying to criticise anyone but I would really expect people arguing in
favour of anarchy to come out with extremely detailed & specific arguments
seeing as you're trying to argue for people to give up their entire way of life.

I'll give an example from professor wikipedia that is both good & classically flawed in the most fundamental way;

On the prison abolition movement

• Prisons may be less effective at discouraging crimes and/or compensating victims than other forms of punishment.[1]
• Degree and quality of access to justice depends on the financial resources of the accused. [2] [3]
• Prisons alienate people from their communities.
• In the U.S., people of color and from the lower class are much more likely to be imprisoned than people of European descent or people who are wealthy.[4]
• People who are put in prison for what are arguably crimes motivated by need, such as some minor theft (food, etc) or prostitution, find it much harder to obtain legal employment once convicted of a crime. Arguably, this difficulty makes it more likely they will find themselves back in the prison system, having had few other options or resources available to support themselves and/or their families.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I Many prison abolitionists argue that we should "legalize survival" and provide help to those who need it instead of making it even harder to find work and perpetuating the non-violent crimes.
• Prisons are not proven to make people less violent. In fact, there is evidence that they may instead promote violence in individuals by surrounding them with other violent criminals, which can lead to predictable negative/violent results.[5]
• Drug-related offenders are being ushered in and out of the prison system like a revolving door. Rather than educate, and rehabilitate the offender to a clean path of sobriety and increased stature, the state ignores them.

On Women & Prison

• 59 % of women who are incarcerated in prison were convicted of a property or drug crime, while only 40% of men incarcerated in prison were convicted a property or drug crime. [6]
• 35 % of women incarcerated in prisons were convicted of violent offenses, while 53% of men were convicted [6]
• Women are twice as likely as men to victimize someone they know. [6]
• Between the years 1986 and 1996 drug offenses counted for 49% of the women in prisons. [6]
• While the rate women used drugs declined in the years from 1986 to 1996 the number of women in prison for drug offenses increased by 888%, while the other non-drug offenses only rose 129% during the same time period. [6]
• 33% of women, in 1998, stated they committed the crime they were in jail for in order to obtain money to buy drugs. [6]
• 40% of women in prison for the year of 1998 reported using drugs at the time they were put in prison, while only 32% of men claimed this. [6]
• In the year 2005, 73.1% of women in prison had a mental health problem, 55% of their male counterparts had a mental health problem. [6]
• 57% of women who were in prison claimed to have experienced physical abuse or sexual abuse prior to their incarceration. [6]
• 68% of prison physicians stated that women prisoners in their prison had access to elective abortions. [7]

link

Alright, great statistics & I'd heartily agree that prison has all & more of the flaws in that link,
but there is no/very little mention of a viable alternative.

If you want to convince anyone of anything you want to get to the root of
the problem & not just bicker because you're going to convince some of
the people reading this thread that anarchism is just child's play...

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

I stated my opinion. You asked fir sort of proof that I was in the majority.

I don't think I did, no.

I never claimed to be in the majority. I gave my opinion and I'm not tolerating any cheek form you any longer.

It's called discussion. If you're not interested in engaging in discussion, nobody's forcing you to keep posting.

No. If you cant handle Google than you're not really fit for anything else.

That's not discussion either.

You might not fully understand the point of a discussion forum like this, but the idea is to engage other people in a conversation; to explain to them why you believe in what you do, and why they should believe in it also.

You're singularly failing to do so, and not being particularly polite about it.

Never said my system is Utopian. The current system doesnt solve the problem as you admit so what wrong with trying another system?

The law of unintended consequences.

simplistic2

This is an interesting study done on road safety in Montana and it clearly shows that people act far more responsibly when their environment does not give the illusion of safety with speed limits and road signs.

Here is what the Montana data shows. (chart below) After all the politically correct safety programs were in place and fully operational, complete with federal safety funds, more laws and citations being issued. Here are the results.

1. After the new Speed Limits were established, interstates fatal accidents went up 111%. From a modern low of 27 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 56 fatal accidents with speed limits.

2. On interstates and federal primary highways combined, Montana went from a modern low of 101 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 143 fatal accidents with speed limits.

3. After a 6 year downward trend in the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents on its 2 lane primary highways, multiple vehicle accident rates increased again.

4. With the expectation of higher speed when there was no daytime limit, Montana’s seat belt usage was well above the national average on its highways without a primary law, lane and road courtesy increased, speeds remained relatively stable and fatal accidents dropped to a modern low. After the new limits, fatal accidents climbed to a modern high on these classifications of highway, road courtesy decreased and flow conflict accidents rose again

http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox

simplistic2

silverharp wrote: »

The Libertarian & anarchists would agree that competing private agencies can issue certs. It works in other areas of life today , education , professional qualifications etc. A centralised Licence system in Ireland's case has probably held back driver training?

I think I had to wait about 14 weeks to take a test , you safely assume there is plenty of room in that market to cut that wait time down to about a week or less.

seawolf145

Hazlittle wrote: »

http://irishlibertyforum.org/researched-articles/68-what-is-anarchy.html



Articles continues to explain some anarchist theory. No historical examples given but I am told they will come later if you sign up on the left for the newsletter.

Personally I prefer anarcho-naturism. As I dont like government and I like being naked.:D

Anarchy

Friday or Saturday night out in Mullingar.

simplistic2

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I haven't really read about what the system you're proposing is...

Discussing the rules of the road is fine but you'd think this triviality would fall
into place naturally with respect to the broader picture.

I'm not trying to criticise anyone but I would really expect people arguing in
favour of anarchy to come out with extremely detailed & specific arguments
seeing as you're trying to argue for people to give up their entire way of life.

I'll give an example from professor wikipedia that is both good & classically flawed in the most fundamental way;

On the prison abolition movement

• Prisons may be less effective at discouraging crimes and/or compensating victims than other forms of punishment.[1]
• Degree and quality of access to justice depends on the financial resources of the accused. [2] [3]
• Prisons alienate people from their communities.
• In the U.S., people of color and from the lower class are much more likely to be imprisoned than people of European descent or people who are wealthy.[4]
• People who are put in prison for what are arguably crimes motivated by need, such as some minor theft (food, etc) or prostitution, find it much harder to obtain legal employment once convicted of a crime. Arguably, this difficulty makes it more likely they will find themselves back in the prison system, having had few other options or resources available to support themselves and/or their families.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I Many prison abolitionists argue that we should "legalize survival" and provide help to those who need it instead of making it even harder to find work and perpetuating the non-violent crimes.
• Prisons are not proven to make people less violent. In fact, there is evidence that they may instead promote violence in individuals by surrounding them with other violent criminals, which can lead to predictable negative/violent results.[5]
• Drug-related offenders are being ushered in and out of the prison system like a revolving door. Rather than educate, and rehabilitate the offender to a clean path of sobriety and increased stature, the state ignores them.

On Women & Prison

• 59 % of women who are incarcerated in prison were convicted of a property or drug crime, while only 40% of men incarcerated in prison were convicted a property or drug crime. [6]
• 35 % of women incarcerated in prisons were convicted of violent offenses, while 53% of men were convicted [6]
• Women are twice as likely as men to victimize someone they know. [6]
• Between the years 1986 and 1996 drug offenses counted for 49% of the women in prisons. [6]
• While the rate women used drugs declined in the years from 1986 to 1996 the number of women in prison for drug offenses increased by 888%, while the other non-drug offenses only rose 129% during the same time period. [6]
• 33% of women, in 1998, stated they committed the crime they were in jail for in order to obtain money to buy drugs. [6]
• 40% of women in prison for the year of 1998 reported using drugs at the time they were put in prison, while only 32% of men claimed this. [6]
• In the year 2005, 73.1% of women in prison had a mental health problem, 55% of their male counterparts had a mental health problem. [6]
• 57% of women who were in prison claimed to have experienced physical abuse or sexual abuse prior to their incarceration. [6]
• 68% of prison physicians stated that women prisoners in their prison had access to elective abortions. [7]

link

Alright, great statistics & I'd heartily agree that prison has all & more of the flaws in that link,
but there is no/very little mention of a viable alternative.

If you want to convince anyone of anything you want to get to the root of
the problem & not just bicker because you're going to convince some of
the people reading this thread that anarchism is just child's play...

In a free society their would be no victimless crimes. This alone would slash the amount of people in prisons. Since many people gain from crime in our society at present like lawyers , judges , Gardai and politicians from a campaign standpoint there is very little incentive to actually try rehabilitate prisoners.

Denerick

Who deals with criminals if there is no law?

Or perhaps the criminal will form a local state. He'll organise the local thugs and monopolise control of weapons around them. While the rest of the populace shrink in terror of these maniacs now in charge of them. Anarchism would be a little easier to stomach if it wasn't so God damn naive.

simplistic2

Denerick wrote: »

Who deals with criminals if there is no law?

Or perhaps the criminal will form a local state. He'll organise the local thugs and monopolise control of weapons around them. While the rest of the populace shrink in terror of these maniacs now in charge of them. Anarchism would be a little easier to stomach if it wasn't so God damn naive.

And then after that all the criminals get together and buy a big laser cannon and hold the world to ransom for 1 million dollars!!

Its called private law...

Also you have just described the formation of the state you live under....naive....

Denerick

How you can compare the state I live in with the myopic future state (IE, one without constitution or even the illusion of representative democracy) is laughable.

simplistic2

Denerick wrote: »

How you can compare the state I live in with the myopic future state (IE, one without constitution or even the illusion of representative democracy) is laughable.

You live in a state of anarchy just a very bad one...

Rabble Rabble

simplistic2 wrote: »

Also you have just described the formation of the state you live under....naive....

So anarchism leads to the State we live in? Except the rule of law is replaced by the guy with the Big Gun?

I'l pass.

Rabble Rabble

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The other thing with anarchists is they keep forming governments, no matter how hard they try not to. If we get together and make laws, or directives, and try and enforce them at whatever level, local, national, or international, then what we are doing is forming a government.

simplistic2

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

So anarchism leads to the State we live in? Except the rule of law is replaced by the guy with the Big Gun?

I'l pass.

Of course it does that why I support anarchism because I like having a big gun at me:rolleyes:

sponsoredwalk

simplistic2 wrote: »

In a free society their would be no victimless crimes. This alone would slash the amount of people in prisons. Since many people gain from crime in our society at present like lawyers , judges , Gardai and politicians from a campaign standpoint there is very little incentive to actually try rehabilitate prisoners.

Again you're repeated the fallacy I was explicitly pointing out.

While I agree with what you're saying & could dredge up examples if you want I'm asking you or anyone in favour of anarchist principles to give a detailed explanation of the alternative - you'll convince no-one to give up the idea that prisons are there to house "the bad guys" by repeating the philosophical statements made over a century ago by Emma Goldman et. al...

The arguments you're making can be easily extrapolated to nothing more than a reform of the criminal justice system (and are).

I'm just telling you that you have an extremely heavy burden of proof on your shoulders & seeing as you're arguing for a social order that has everyone's interests @ heart you might do well to convince even the nay-sayers that what you're arguing for is not just childish rebellion but a social order that has their interests @ heart.

simplistic2

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Again you're repeated the fallacy I was explicitly pointing out.

While I agree with what you're saying & could dredge up examples if you want I'm asking you or anyone in favour of anarchist principles to give a detailed explanation of the alternative - you'll convince no-one to give up the idea that prisons are there to house "the bad guys" by repeating the philosophical statements made over a century ago by Emma Goldman et. al...

The arguments you're making can be easily extrapolated to nothing more than a reform of the criminal justice system (and are).

I'm just telling you that you have an extremely heavy burden of proof on your shoulders & seeing as you're arguing for a social order that has everyone's interests @ heart you might do well to convince even the nay-sayers that what you're arguing for is not just childish rebellion but a social order that has their interests @ heart.

Here is an example of what could happen to a rapist in a anarchistic society.

DRO stands for dispute resolution organisations and are the equivalent of law enforcement services.

Let us imagine what might happen to a rapist in a stateless society. All general DRO contracts will include “rape protection,” since DROs will want to avoid incurring the medical, psychological and income costs of a rape for one of their own customers. Part of “rape protection” will be the provision of significant financial restitution to a rape victim. (Women who can’t afford “rape protection” will be subsidized by charities – or lawyers will represent them pro bono in return for a cut of the restitution.)

If a woman gets raped, she then applies to her DRO for restitution. The DRO then finds her rapist – using the most advanced forensic techniques available – and sends an agent to knock on his door.

“Good morning, sir,” the agent will politely say. “You have been charged with rape, and I’m here to inform you of your options. We wish to make this process as painless and non-intrusive as possible for you, and so will schedule a trial at the time of your earliest convenience. If you do not attend this trial, or testify falsely, or attempt to flee, we shall apply significant sanctions against you, which are outlined in your existing DRO contract. Our agreement with your bank allows us to freeze your assets – except for basic living and legal expenses – the moment that you are charged with a violent crime. We also have agreements with airlines, road, bus and train companies, as well as gas stations, to prevent you from leaving town until this matter is resolved.

“You can represent yourself in this trial, choose from one of our lawyers, or we will pay for any lawyer you prefer, at standard rates. Also, as per our existing contract, we are to be allowed access to your home for purposes of investigation. You are free to deny us this access, of course, but then we shall assume that you are guilty of the crime, and will apply all the sanctions allowed to us by contract.

“If you are found to be innocent of this crime, we will pay you the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be funded by the woman who has charged you with rape. We will also offer free psychological counseling for you, in order to help you avoid such accusers in the future.”

The trial will commence, and will return a verdict in due course. (It seems highly likely that lie-detectors will be admissible, since they are more than 90% accurate when used correctly, which is better than most witnesses. The reason that they are not admissible now is that they would make lawyers less valuable, and also would reveal the degree to which the State police lie.)

If the man is found guilty, he will receive another visit from his DRO representative.

“Good afternoon, sir,” the agent will say. “You have been found guilty of rape, and I’m here to inform you of your punishment. We have a reciprocal agreement with your bank, which has now put a hold on your accounts, and provided us limited access. We will be deducting double the costs of our investigation and trial from your funds, and will also be transferring half a million dollars to the woman that you raped.

We are aware that you do not have sufficient funds to cover this cost, which we will address in a moment. We also have reciprocal agreements with the companies that provide water and electricity to your house, and those will now be cut off. Furthermore, no gas station will sell you gasoline, and no train station, airline or bus company will sell you a ticket. We have made arrangements with all of the local grocery stores to deny you service, either in person or online.

If you set foot on the street outside your house, which is owned privately, you will be physically removed for trespassing. Your wife and children can leave at any time. If they have no place to go, we will cover their transition costs, and charge you for them.

“Of course, you have the right to appeal this sentence, and if you successfully appeal, we would transfer our costs to the woman who has accused you of rape, and pay you for the inconvenience we have caused you. If, however, your appeal fails, all additional costs will be added to your debt.

“I can tell you openly that if you choose to stay in your house, you will be unable to survive for very long. You will run out of food and water. You can attempt to escape your own house, of course, leaving all of your possessions. If you do successfully escape, be aware that you are now entered into a central registry, and no reputable DRO will ever represent you. Furthermore, all DROs which have reciprocal agreements with us – which is the vast majority of them – will withdraw services from their own customers if those customers provide you with any goods or services.

For the rest of your life, it will be almost impossible for you to open a bank account, use centralized currency, carry a credit card, own a car, buy gas, use a road – or any other form of transportation – and gaining food, water and lodging will be a constant nightmare for you. You will spend your entire existence running, hiding and begging, and will never find peace, solace or comfort in any place.

“However, there is an option. If you come with me now, we will take you to a place of work for a period of ten years. During that time, you will be working for us in a capacity which will be determined by your skills. If you do not have any viable skills, we will train you. Your wages will go to us, and we will deduct the costs of your incarceration, as well as any of the costs I outlined above which are not covered by your existing funds. A small amount of your wages will be set aside to help get you started after your release.

“During your stay with us, we will do our utmost help you, because we do not want to have to go through all of this with again you in the future. You will take courses on ethics. You will take courses on anger management. You will take psychological counseling. You will emerge from your work term a far better person. And when you do emerge, all of your rights will be fully restored, and you will be able to participate once more in the economic and social life of society.

“You have a choice now, and I want you to understand the full ramifications of that choice. If you come with me now, this is the best offer that I can give you. If you decide to stay in your house, and later change your mind, the penalties will be far greater. If you escape, and later change your mind, the penalties will be greater still. In our experience, 99.99% of people who either run or stay end up changing their minds, and end up that much worse off. The remaining 0.01%? They commit suicide.

“The choice is now yours. Do the right thing. Do the wise thing. Come with me.”

Can we really imagine that anyone would choose to stay in his own house and die of thirst, unable to even flush his toilet? Can we imagine that anyone would choose a life of perpetual running and hiding and begging? Even if the rapist had no interest in becoming a better person, surely the cost/benefit of the options outlined above would convince him.

There will always be a small number of truly evil or insane people within society. There are far better ways of dealing with them than our existing system of dehumanizing, brutal and destructive State gulags, which generally serve only to expand their criminal intent, skills and contacts. Also, it is important to remember that the existing State prisons contain relatively few evil or insane people.

The majority of those in jail are nonviolent offenders, enslaved and in chains because they used recreational drugs, or gambled, or went to a prostitute, or did not pay all their taxes, or other such innocuous nonsense – or turned to crime because State “vice” prohibitions made crime so profitable, and State “education” kept them so ignorant.

Our choice, then, is between a system which removes the tiny minority of evil people from society, rehabilitates them if all possible, and makes them work productively to support their own confinement – or a State system which spends most of its time and energies enslaving innocent people, while letting the evil and insane roam free – or become Commander in Chief.

http://freedomainradio.com/board/blogs/freedomain/archive/2008/11/14/practical-anarchy-the-book.aspx

Denerick

Your alternative incarceration system is ridiculous and amounts to free labour for the mysterious central justice unit and a childish assumption that bank accounts, insurance industries, airlines, transportation, currency markets etc. etc. will inter-relate indepedently and so efficiently.

Anarchism really is self delusion.

simplistic2

Denerick wrote: »

Your alternative incarceration system is ridiculous and amounts to free labour

Really state exactly where it says that ? None of your statements are backed up and they come across as petty passive aggressive insults.

Denerick wrote: »

for the mysterious central justice unit

This statement clearly shows that your not posting in this thread to actually engage in a reasoned debate your dribbling nonsense. Anarchism is the polar opposite of centralization and you know this.

Denerick wrote: »

and a childish assumption that bank accounts, insurance industries, airlines, transportation, currency markets etc. etc. will inter-relate indepedently and so efficiently.

They wont interrelate for the "common good" they will interrelate because its will either be unprofitable to keep a rapist on books.

Denerick wrote: »

Anarchism really is self delusion.

Every state in the history of mankind has collapsed. Anarchism is the recognition of this fact and a solution to the problem. A delusion is when someone rejects the facts.

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

Every state in the history of mankind has collapsed.

When did Denmark collapse?

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

When did Denmark collapse?

Whoops yeah bit of a rash statement there I suppose the Irish state hasnt collapsed yet either but with the current level of debts that many of the modern states have riddled themselves with they cant be far off.

Rabble Rabble

Simplistic is, apparently an anarcho capitalist quite distinct from the anarchist one sees on the TV. Resist. Revolt.

Anyway anarcho capitalism is slightly saner than the anarchy of socialism. But not much.

Rabble Rabble

The rapist story is nonsensical.

Who owns the footpath outside the door?
If it is everybody why is that not the same as a State?

Why are all these distinct groups and businesses not trading? What if they want to trade? Why are the banks involved? What is it to them?

What if this guy was a maifiosi Don and all the companies were scared of him, and wanted to trade. What if he had the money What if he owned the footpath.
What if he killed the guy "arresting" him.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.