RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,684
Posts: 5,430,489
Members: 24,830
Currently online: 369
Newest member: Old Man 51


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 7 2013, 10:27 PM   #226
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

sonak wrote: View Post
What's your position on peaceful secession from such a world government, though?
If a world government was legitimate, no one should want to secede from it. That's my position.

I mean, the United States surely isn't perfect by any means, but you don't see any of our states trying to secede, do ya? Well, maybe Rick Perry made noises to that effect, but nobody took him seriously.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 12:30 AM   #227
Nightdiamond
Fleet Captain
 
Nightdiamond's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the fear for a united earth comes from the example of the Republic in Star wars.

One huge government composed of a huge number of different planets, aliens and cultures.

Supposedly, like Trek these people considered themselves brothers just because they belong to the same government, even if their planets were light years away from each other.

In the end the government was shown to be bloated, and ineffectual, and ended up becoming an empire--by its own decision ..
Nightdiamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 12:39 AM   #228
TheGoodNews
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
I wouldn't be surprised if most of the fear for a united earth comes from the example of the Republic in Star wars.

One huge government composed of a huge number of different planets, aliens and cultures.

Supposedly, like Trek these people considered themselves brothers just because they belong to the same government, even if their planets were light years away from each other.

In the end the government was shown to be bloated, and ineffectual, and ended up becoming an empire--by its own decision ..
No, in the U.S. it comes mostly from nativism and right-wing populist agit prop. Fear of the UN or internationalism or One World Order claptrap.
TheGoodNews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 12:46 AM   #229
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
What's your position on peaceful secession from such a world government, though?
If a world government was legitimate, no one should want to secede from it. That's my position.

I mean, the United States surely isn't perfect by any means, but you don't see any of our states trying to secede, do ya? Well, maybe Rick Perry made noises to that effect, but nobody took him seriously.

er, well, there's a reason why secession movements aren't taken very seriously in the U.S. The precedent suggests that such movements would be violently suppressed if they were tried.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 03:56 AM   #230
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

Well, I'm sure that if a US state entertained serious talk of secession, it wouldn't be put down in a military sense. I don't know how they would go about doing it, but I highly doubt there would be another Civil War.

That being said, whatever problems that get so serious that it gets people talking secession can (I should hope) be resolved without actually resorting to secession. The USA has its share of problems, but none are so serious that it would make states want to secede. Same goes for a world government - any such organization that could survive and prosper, would not deserve to be seceded from, I should think.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 07:12 AM   #231
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Well, I'm sure that if a US state entertained serious talk of secession, it wouldn't be put down in a military sense. I don't know how they would go about doing it, but I highly doubt there would be another Civil War.

That being said, whatever problems that get so serious that it gets people talking secession can (I should hope) be resolved without actually resorting to secession. The USA has its share of problems, but none are so serious that it would make states want to secede. Same goes for a world government - any such organization that could survive and prosper, would not deserve to be seceded from, I should think.
All these are mere rationalisations so that you avoid facing the problem sonak articulated.
Most likely because, on some level, you know you have no satisfactory answer.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 08:09 AM   #232
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Well, I'm sure that if a US state entertained serious talk of secession, it wouldn't be put down in a military sense. I don't know how they would go about doing it, but I highly doubt there would be another Civil War.

That being said, whatever problems that get so serious that it gets people talking secession can (I should hope) be resolved without actually resorting to secession. The USA has its share of problems, but none are so serious that it would make states want to secede. Same goes for a world government - any such organization that could survive and prosper, would not deserve to be seceded from, I should think.
Once again perhaps we need to look at the EU, like most organisatons it has it's pros and cons, yet if a referendum was held today in the UK, it would likely vote to withdraw from the EU. I'm not wanting to turn this into a debate on the EU, I'm merely highlighting the fact that you could potentially have countries that want to leave a World Government for whatever reason.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 12:58 PM   #233
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

The EU is not a state in the key sense that it has sovereignty. Each member state can and does go to war when it wants. As for the EU as a state in the sense of the highest form of polity governing economic life, the EU is deliberately set up on nondemocratic line. It is aimed at semiprivate control of finance. Representatives of sovereign states hammer out details behind closed doors on issues based on principles set forth by private but privileged groups. Limitations on government debt, for instance.

The EU can break up relatively peacefully because it does not exercise sovereignty. But in practice there might be issues with NATO. But then, NATO is not a purely European institution. One of the more utopian ideas is the notion (you can't really call it an idea) that the verdicts of WWII will be undone without violence. The US calls the shots, as in Yugoslavia.

Edit_XYZ, it is unclear what the objection is. The formal legitimacy (as a body that carries out the general will) of a world state is irrelevant in a sense. There are no constitutional guarantees that can't be subverted. But a corrupted world state should be revolutionized, however great the sacrifice. The non sequitur is the conclusion that freedom would be served by the revival of sovereign states and war.

Secession talk in the US, whether in Texas or Vermont, is aimed at local majorities or pluralities frustrated that the US constitutional system removes so much of our daily lives from popular control. The constitutional inequities and the gerrymandering of political life by the state governments are the foundation of an elaborate system that renders the government free from the population at large.

Political conservatives like to imagine that they are the silent majority frustrated by those infamous centers of power, the universities, the labor unions and the inner city. Political liberals pretty much died with Lyndon Johnson so what any alleged survivors think is irrelevant. Social liberals are probably the plurality and social conservatives are hopelessly divided on who the good people worth more than the others really are. But the ideal of social tolerance is not a major government policy, so that tends to be irrelevant too.

The slave power made sure that the federal government was weak and that in practice it had a multitude of social bonds tying it to the army, as well as its own private army. It is common to degrade Hamilton for wanting to establish a standing army, even though the US suffered terribly in the war of 1812 without one. But when Jackson bluffed South Carolina in the Nullification crisis, it was not an accident that he did not have the force to win outright. Nor was it an accident that one of the sequelae was the imposition of postal censorship in the slave power. The US today has a gigantic military establishment. Secession is inconceivable.
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 10:05 PM   #234
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

stj wrote: View Post
The EU is not a state in the key sense that it has sovereignty. Each member state can and does go to war when it wants. As for the EU as a state in the sense of the highest form of polity governing economic life, the EU is deliberately set up on nondemocratic line. It is aimed at semiprivate control of finance. Representatives of sovereign states hammer out details behind closed doors on issues based on principles set forth by private but privileged groups. Limitations on government debt, for instance.

The EU can break up relatively peacefully because it does not exercise sovereignty. But in practice there might be issues with NATO. But then, NATO is not a purely European institution. One of the more utopian ideas is the notion (you can't really call it an idea) that the verdicts of WWII will be undone without violence. The US calls the shots, as in Yugoslavia.

Edit_XYZ, it is unclear what the objection is. The formal legitimacy (as a body that carries out the general will) of a world state is irrelevant in a sense. There are no constitutional guarantees that can't be subverted. But a corrupted world state should be revolutionized, however great the sacrifice. The non sequitur is the conclusion that freedom would be served by the revival of sovereign states and war.

Secession talk in the US, whether in Texas or Vermont, is aimed at local majorities or pluralities frustrated that the US constitutional system removes so much of our daily lives from popular control. The constitutional inequities and the gerrymandering of political life by the state governments are the foundation of an elaborate system that renders the government free from the population at large.

Political conservatives like to imagine that they are the silent majority frustrated by those infamous centers of power, the universities, the labor unions and the inner city. Political liberals pretty much died with Lyndon Johnson so what any alleged survivors think is irrelevant. Social liberals are probably the plurality and social conservatives are hopelessly divided on who the good people worth more than the others really are. But the ideal of social tolerance is not a major government policy, so that tends to be irrelevant too.

The slave power made sure that the federal government was weak and that in practice it had a multitude of social bonds tying it to the army, as well as its own private army. It is common to degrade Hamilton for wanting to establish a standing army, even though the US suffered terribly in the war of 1812 without one. But when Jackson bluffed South Carolina in the Nullification crisis, it was not an accident that he did not have the force to win outright. Nor was it an accident that one of the sequelae was the imposition of postal censorship in the slave power. The US today has a gigantic military establishment. Secession is inconceivable.

Are you saying that any problems with the world government would be handled successfully by "people power" revolutions? But you also acknowledge that the reason why secession in the US is "inconceivable" is precisely BECAUSE of its gigantic military establishment. That issue would still be there with a world government, because they'd have the monopoly on force. I'm not clear what your solution to the issue of peaceful secession is.

Is it:


A) Yes, it'd be allowed

B) it'd be suppressed with the necessary amount of force

C) there'd be no need for secession

D) it depends on various factors, such as popular support

C) strikes me as a cop-out, because you can easily imagine any small group in any society, even a happy, prosperous one, wanting to establish their own government
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 12:05 AM   #235
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

sonak wrote: View Post
Yes, it'd be allowed
Brings into question how it would be done. The decision could be made solely and independently by a majority of the people in the area to secede, by a majority of the world's population (a planet-wide plebiscite), or by the world government itself.

it'd be suppressed with the necessary amount of force
It would be easy to imagine some people wanting for the world government to strip the former sovereign nations of all their military armaments, basically from day one. Perhaps accompanied by elimination of the right for private citizens to legally possess firearms. This would make suppression of the populace quite easy.

there'd be no need for secession ... strikes me as a cop-out, because you can easily imagine any small group in any society, even a happy, prosperous one, wanting to establish their own government
Even if no group avails themselves of the possibility, the ability to secede should exist.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
What's your position on peaceful secession from such a world government, though?
If a world government was legitimate, no one should want to secede from it. That's my position.
If (when) China joined the world state, would say Tibet then separately have the ability to make their own choice on the matter? And if Tibet was initially swept in by China's decision, could Tibet as a people/territory subsequently, politely and peacefully decline to remain with the world state?

If the initial entry was illegitimate, that might form a reason to wish to secede.


T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 02:55 PM   #236
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

sonak wrote: View Post
[
Are you saying that any problems with the world government would be handled successfully by "people power" revolutions? But you also acknowledge that the reason why secession in the US is "inconceivable" is precisely BECAUSE of its gigantic military establishment. That issue would still be there with a world government, because they'd have the monopoly on force. I'm not clear what your solution to the issue of peaceful secession is.
If there was an alleged world state in which there was a gigantic military establishment, with forces recruited from a single nation, distributed in a global archipelago of states, overseen by an elaborate network of satellites, electronic eavesdropping and drone murders, what you have is simply a new-fashioned empire.

On the other hand, if a world state were a genuine world state responsive to the majority, it could not recruit from a particular element of the population, meaning it could not create an military that viewed itself as different from the rest of the population. Since there would be no other armies to defeat, it is doubtful that it could manage to assemble the massive forces needed to oppress large populations. It could not even easily place military bases. Nor can it ignore civil rights in the name of national security.

But, the real question is not how to peacefully secede from a corrupted world state no longer responsive to the majority. The real question is how a local population reclaiming the right to wage war is going to help. I don't know the best way to revise local government boundaries and what kinds of autonomous powers to grant subdivisions of the world state. There are great tasks for posterity to achieve. But it is not at all clear that for a local population to arm itself and claim the legal and moral right to kill massive numbers of supposed enemies is in any way a practical or moral solution to any political problems.

Is it:


A) Yes, it'd be allowed

B) it'd be suppressed with the necessary amount of force

C) there'd be no need for secession

D) it depends on various factors, such as popular support

C) strikes me as a cop-out, because you can easily imagine any small group in any society, even a happy, prosperous one, wanting to establish their own government
Why would their happiness and prosperity make them want to pay for an army? Except to be able to defy the majority of humanity, that is?

Again, whatever system of local, regional, continental (?) governments and whatever distribution of powers amongst the branches of the state, they must be amenable to democratic revision, according to the will of the majority. The majority includes all humanity, especially when it comes to issues of war. There is no sane definition of democracy that ascribes a veto to a plurality in a particular region.

Thinking that a particular nation must have its supposed rights unchallenged is bizarrely metaphysical (no matter how common it is!) It is just the prettified version of the political conservative principle that some people have more rights than other.


T'Girl wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
Yes, it'd be allowed
Brings into question how it would be done. The decision could be made solely and independently by a majority of the people in the area to secede, by a majority of the world's population (a planet-wide plebiscite), or by the world government itself.

it'd be suppressed with the necessary amount of force
It would be easy to imagine some people wanting for the world government to strip the former sovereign nations of all their military armaments, basically from day one. Perhaps accompanied by elimination of the right for private citizens to legally possess firearms. This would make suppression of the populace quite easy.

Even if no group avails themselves of the possibility, the ability to secede should exist.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
What's your position on peaceful secession from such a world government, though?
If a world government was legitimate, no one should want to secede from it. That's my position.
If (when) China joined the world state, would say Tibet then separately have the ability to make their own choice on the matter? And if Tibet was initially swept in by China's decision, could Tibet as a people/territory subsequently, politely and peacefully decline to remain with the world state?

If the initial entry was illegitimate, that might form a reason to wish to secede.


More craziness. Just a couple of points to illustrate.

Disarming the population does not make their suppression quite easy. Antilabor laws make suppression of the people quite easy, which is why political conservatives are universally antilabor. In revolutions, the people, even when arms are not prohibited, for the rather practical reason that they generally can't afford many weapons, end up acquiring their weapons by force from the military, which collapses in a revolution.

(The days when weaponry was relatively cheap and really meant that the private citizen could meaningfully participate in a militia that could kill Indians or hunt runaway slaves are long gone. In ancient Rome, when weaponry was dear, ownership of arms meant you were higher-class, with special political privileges. In mediaeval Europe, owenership of arms meant you were a knight, not a serf. Armaments are not the foundation of freedom, they are the instruments of oppression. That is why the very ideal of a peaceful world is anathema to political conservatives.)

The Tibet/China example highlights precisely the moral advantage of a genuine world state. The people of Africa, the Americas, Europe, etc. have no interest in exerting force on Tibetans to keep them in a particular political arrangement with China. The logistical requirements imposed by differences in language alone would tend to make it more convenient to have a separate district government. It's China that would need to secede from a world state to continue to exercise undue influence in Tibet! And there would be absolutely no benefit to the Tibetans to devote themselves to paying for a military that would threaten their own freedoms, especially one that would have to be ready to attack the entire world!

The political conservative opposition to a world state, even as an ideal (the thread topic or have some of us forgotten?) is similar to the slavers' opposition to Hamilton's standing army: A world state might interfere with the local rulers' privileges.
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 05:31 PM   #237
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

stj wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
[
Are you saying that any problems with the world government would be handled successfully by "people power" revolutions? But you also acknowledge that the reason why secession in the US is "inconceivable" is precisely BECAUSE of its gigantic military establishment. That issue would still be there with a world government, because they'd have the monopoly on force. I'm not clear what your solution to the issue of peaceful secession is.
If there was an alleged world state in which there was a gigantic military establishment, with forces recruited from a single nation, distributed in a global archipelago of states, overseen by an elaborate network of satellites, electronic eavesdropping and drone murders, what you have is simply a new-fashioned empire.

On the other hand, if a world state were a genuine world state responsive to the majority, it could not recruit from a particular element of the population, meaning it could not create an military that viewed itself as different from the rest of the population. Since there would be no other armies to defeat, it is doubtful that it could manage to assemble the massive forces needed to oppress large populations. It could not even easily place military bases. Nor can it ignore civil rights in the name of national security.

But, the real question is not how to peacefully secede from a corrupted world state no longer responsive to the majority. The real question is how a local population reclaiming the right to wage war is going to help. I don't know the best way to revise local government boundaries and what kinds of autonomous powers to grant subdivisions of the world state. There are great tasks for posterity to achieve. But it is not at all clear that for a local population to arm itself and claim the legal and moral right to kill massive numbers of supposed enemies is in any way a practical or moral solution to any political problems.

Is it:


A) Yes, it'd be allowed

B) it'd be suppressed with the necessary amount of force

C) there'd be no need for secession

D) it depends on various factors, such as popular support

C) strikes me as a cop-out, because you can easily imagine any small group in any society, even a happy, prosperous one, wanting to establish their own government
Why would their happiness and prosperity make them want to pay for an army? Except to be able to defy the majority of humanity, that is?

Again, whatever system of local, regional, continental (?) governments and whatever distribution of powers amongst the branches of the state, they must be amenable to democratic revision, according to the will of the majority. The majority includes all humanity, especially when it comes to issues of war. There is no sane definition of democracy that ascribes a veto to a plurality in a particular region.

Thinking that a particular nation must have its supposed rights unchallenged is bizarrely metaphysical (no matter how common it is!) It is just the prettified version of the political conservative principle that some people have more rights than other.


T'Girl wrote: View Post
Brings into question how it would be done. The decision could be made solely and independently by a majority of the people in the area to secede, by a majority of the world's population (a planet-wide plebiscite), or by the world government itself.

It would be easy to imagine some people wanting for the world government to strip the former sovereign nations of all their military armaments, basically from day one. Perhaps accompanied by elimination of the right for private citizens to legally possess firearms. This would make suppression of the populace quite easy.

Even if no group avails themselves of the possibility, the ability to secede should exist.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
If a world government was legitimate, no one should want to secede from it. That's my position.
If (when) China joined the world state, would say Tibet then separately have the ability to make their own choice on the matter? And if Tibet was initially swept in by China's decision, could Tibet as a people/territory subsequently, politely and peacefully decline to remain with the world state?

If the initial entry was illegitimate, that might form a reason to wish to secede.


More craziness. Just a couple of points to illustrate.

Disarming the population does not make their suppression quite easy. Antilabor laws make suppression of the people quite easy, which is why political conservatives are universally antilabor. In revolutions, the people, even when arms are not prohibited, for the rather practical reason that they generally can't afford many weapons, end up acquiring their weapons by force from the military, which collapses in a revolution.

(The days when weaponry was relatively cheap and really meant that the private citizen could meaningfully participate in a militia that could kill Indians or hunt runaway slaves are long gone. In ancient Rome, when weaponry was dear, ownership of arms meant you were higher-class, with special political privileges. In mediaeval Europe, owenership of arms meant you were a knight, not a serf. Armaments are not the foundation of freedom, they are the instruments of oppression. That is why the very ideal of a peaceful world is anathema to political conservatives.)

The Tibet/China example highlights precisely the moral advantage of a genuine world state. The people of Africa, the Americas, Europe, etc. have no interest in exerting force on Tibetans to keep them in a particular political arrangement with China. The logistical requirements imposed by differences in language alone would tend to make it more convenient to have a separate district government. It's China that would need to secede from a world state to continue to exercise undue influence in Tibet! And there would be absolutely no benefit to the Tibetans to devote themselves to paying for a military that would threaten their own freedoms, especially one that would have to be ready to attack the entire world!

The political conservative opposition to a world state, even as an ideal (the thread topic or have some of us forgotten?) is similar to the slavers' opposition to Hamilton's standing army: A world state might interfere with the local rulers' privileges.

there are left-wing ideologies or movements that wouldn't necessarily be pro-world government. It was those that I was thinking of when I brought up the potential of peaceful secession.

Left-libertarians, anarcho-syndicalists, social liberals, and some "religious progressive" types might all potentially be suspicious of the type of concentrated power that a world state would represent. I could see various groups getting together through the use of the internet and other technologies, and wanting to experiment with different types of societies.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 07:18 PM   #238
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

Yes, a decent world state should be able to accommodate such collective enterprises, in some fashion. I don't know any of them would need an army, though, and I can't regard it as oppression to deny them the legal and moral right to wage war.

Technically, the barest minimum of a world state could be a Kellog-Briand style pact with a really existing enforcement mechanism. I can't imagine even the barest sketch of how such a sovereign authority can exist in a world of contemporary states merely divested of a legal and moral right to wage war. But if some one could give us a clue? The real point of this thread is the OP's claim that such a state would be a Bad Thing and shouldn't even be an ideal to aspire to. Despite all the posts and asides I haven't seen the barest hint of an argument besides, basically, "because!"
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 04:33 AM   #239
newtontomato539
Commander
 
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

"elites" is my first clue.

"United Earth would be oppressive and the elites would rule!"

is the mantra of marxists, socialists, anarchists, tea partyers and libertarians.
newtontomato539 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 05:06 PM   #240
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

newtontomato539 wrote: View Post
"elites" is my first clue.

"United Earth would be oppressive and the elites would rule!"

is the mantra of marxists, socialists, anarchists, tea partyers and libertarians.

that's a pretty disparate group that includes just about everyone across the spectrum.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
loony libertarians

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.