1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6068/society-without-a-state/

Society Without a State

December 28, 2006 by

The power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public. After centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services, writes Murray Rothbard in this vigorous defense of pure liberty. And yet the idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services. Nor does anarchism assume that men are angels. Given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. FULL ARTICLE

{ 29 comments }

Sam December 28, 2006 at 10:33 am

Gosh darn it, it’s articles like these that make me presume that Libertarians are the long suffering middle class sandwiched between Dole-Bludging, Lazy, Ne’er Do Well poor and Big Bad Government-Subsidised, Corporate-Shielded Cigar-Smoking rich. That at school Libertarians were never the weakling outcasts nor the big burly bullies. The average Libertarian stands around 5’9″ to 6’2″ feet tall and has a ho-hum average build. They strong enough not to be intimidated but neither strong enough nor greedy enough to rule over others. And, of course, most Libertarians are either self-employed, small-business owning or a middle-management employee. And lastly Libertarians are most likely Western men.

Hence I find articles such as this only being written and endorsed by those who had never known the fear of being bullied and not being able to fight back. Perhaps these are the folks upon seeing telling a skinny weakling victim to beat up the burly bully and then the bully will start showing some respect.

One thing that has amazed and startled me now and through history is the way in which both street criminals and rulers show utter disregard for the rights of their victims. How can any down-to-earth person can fathom that there are people who quite happy to kill, maim, murder people for a quick profit? To be sure most government structures are derivatives of dictatorial slave-owning societies. The law-enforcement of this government is simply maintain order but mostly to keep the slaves from rebelling.

But if I were to try and give an idyllic Democratic government a proverbial ideological justification would be one where the government would defend the rights of those who couldn’t defend themselves without help. Unfortunately any weakling who employs a strongman for protection against other strongmen will forever being paying. Hence governments only half-heartedly protect the weak but prefer to pursue further self-empowerment.

To agree with Libertarian Grand Pessimism history obviously shows that brutal, slave-owning tyrannies are the norm whereas as free societies, I’ll include Democracy too, are short-lived recesses till the next tyranny.

With this article, protection agencies, arbitration courts, etc., show they will only work for the middle class (hence your articles told about the benefit to the merchant class), the rich would have their own private armies, whereas the poor would have to self-arm. But what would protection agency do against well-organised criminal gangs such as, say, the Mafia?

Like it or not, the barbarity and tyranny of history shows that coercion is sadly very successful. Perhaps it is no coincidence that truly free societies are independent small tribes or villages.

Daniel October 28, 2010 at 7:57 pm

Ireland circa 650 to 1650? That’s pretty big

Then again, it took Cromwell murdering 215 thousand Irish (out of a population of 1.5 million) to take control of it

Brad December 28, 2006 at 11:52 am

Sam,

I am somewhat Jeffersonian in viewpoint in that he saw that revolution was a natural result of the Nation-State, and endless cycle of power build-up/diffusion, so long as government was kept in a certain sized box to start with. He felt that sooner or later ALL State constructs were prone to tyranny and needed to be retrofitted. I guess all one could hope for was a timely reaction to tyranny.

Inherent in his ideals was “smaller scale” hence his Anti-Federalist viewpoints. If government was comprised outside of the reasonable box to start with, this correcting mechanism could not work. We have been suffering the consequences of Federalism since the Constitution.

So to address your comprehension of libertarians, and setting aside the perfect ideal (as I did in supporting your statements in another thread), libertarians in practicality want altogether less government, and more disbursed forms. Advancing the cause of truly free markets, free from the black hole gravitation of Statism advances the cause of liberty and individual valuations.

So perfect anarchy is an ideal. Statist themselves have an ideal, never perfectly put into effect. The question then is freedom and force, and how much of either are people willing to tolerate.

David White December 28, 2006 at 12:44 pm

Sam:

Your post only confirms the fact that you are either unwilling or unable to understand what you read, as Rothbard couldn’t be clearer on the point that it is precisely because people are both evil and good, the institutionalization of coercion via the state assures that more will be bullied, not less, and that the “average libertarian” is therefore the rule rather than the exception.

In other words, because you do not have faith in liberty, you do not have faith in humanity. And because you do not have faith in humanity, you play into the hands of those who believe, with Machiavelli, that the ruler “must suppose all men bad and exploit the evil qualities in their nature whenever suitable occasion offers.”

And the state is nothing if not a seeker of suitable occasions.

Mike December 28, 2006 at 2:41 pm

Criminal gangs such as the Mafia?
Isn’t most of the criminality of the Mafia based on laws that would not exist under some form of anarchy (gambling, drugs, prostitution, illegally obtained govt contracts, etc…)?
In other words, why would you need a subversive group such as the Mafia if there were no laws against such vices listed above or if there were no govt contracts to hand out or labor unions using govt protection to harm employers and employees?
And don’t say that they could still organize and coerce weak people to pay up for “protection”… or else. That’s no different than the current system of govt we have now.

Som December 28, 2006 at 5:41 pm

There is only one issue I have with this otherwise flawless article, where Rothbard writes…

“or in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.”

Well that’s the real trick isn’t it? Does that mean that there always has to be an “elite” group of anarchists to make a libertarian law code workable and stable? Does it mean that there has to be a written common law (or natural rights) code all judges must adhere to?

I think anarchic Iceland had a similar problem, especially when they decided in courts that Christianity would be deemed rights that the other “pagan” religions did not have.

But, in my view, a solution to such a problem could be found in a definite libertarian law code, not unlike a sort of “universal” bill of rights. It would be a doctrine across the country, but it’s enforcement and legitimacy would be dependent on the people as a whole, and not by a specific elite group, since natural elites have a higher respect of opinion but cannot be claimed as a final authority in disseminating rights in a stateless order.

It worked for Latin Christendom in the middle ages. Why not for a libertarian law code either?

averros December 28, 2006 at 10:28 pm

Does that mean that there always has to be an “elite” group of anarchists to make a libertarian law code workable and stable? Does it mean that there has to be a written common law (or natural rights) code all judges must adhere to?

No more than there’s a need for an “elite” group of scientists to make the laws of nature. The natural laws are discovered, not made.

The libertarian theory of law is based on logic, and is logically derived from few well-established empirical facts (people can act, people are different, material things are scarce, etc) and few a priori constraints (it must be universal, it must be conflict-free, etc).

You can follow the logic of the derivation on your own (I’d recommend Rothbard’s “The Ethics of Liberty” as the source) to see for yourself that it is correct. No elite is required.

averros December 28, 2006 at 10:37 pm

Sam –

Hence I find articles such as this only being written and endorsed by those who had never known the fear of being bullied and not being able to fight back.

I lived in a totalitarian state. I was what they call “a dissident”. Fortunately, that state has collapsed (I hope I helped it on its way) before it managed to kill me (bot not before I acquired too many white hair for my age). And, yes, I know how committing high treason feels like. I’m proud of it.

Never known the fear… I wish.

Sam December 28, 2006 at 11:13 pm

Somehow averros you response seemed as though you are one of minority Libertarian who are concerned with genuine personal liberty. The other responses seems to confirm my whinge that a lot of card-carrying Libertarians are really just grumpy merchants who don’t like The Government and would like to see a simple free-trading merchant society.

At least, you too, show concern that other Libertarians seem to be presuming that everyone is fundamentally good at heart. When, of course, there are plenty of thiefs, killers, con-artists who prey on simple feel-good sappy thinking. The fact that brutal societies arise means there are plenty of people who go along with the tyrants, joining them in their violence but believing they’re good because they are only doing to save their own skin.

Perhaps the other reason free societies don’t exist much is that it takes people willing to sacrifice their own lives to topple tyrants, or preventing them seizing power, for the sake of others. Maybe this is a price too high and few are willing to pay the price and it shows.

Eric December 29, 2006 at 12:21 pm





Rothbard mentions a requirement for his brand of Anarchy to work:

Rothbard mentions a requirement for his brand of Anarchy to work:

"no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. "

I think we have an example that refutes this statement, namely Iraq pre-invasion with Sadaam, and post invasion. It appears that in Iraq, the social structure is the clan. These clans do seem to assault and rob their neighbors, i.e. those of other clans. When Bush invaded, he released the lid of the pressure cooker that Sadaam was sitting on. Depending on what Rothbard means by "can work", I would offer that Iraq did work under Sadaam. But then since he does not define "can work" it’s difficult to prove this point.

I believe that human nature has evolved to include morals such as, "be nice to all in our group (clan) because one will likely deal with everyone at one time or another and they will reciprocate". Other morals, such as "tit for tat" where grudges come into play are also likely genetic. I don’t believe we get our morals from books (like the Bible or Koran) but rather they are built into to us, and then books are written that includes examples of our built in morals.

Examples also abound from the rest of the animal kingdom. Look at the works of Richard Dawkins for examples of this. Of course, if one denies Darwinian principles, then perhaps this scenario that is mentioned by Rothbard would make sense:

"Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. "

But this is not how it works. We belong to groups and we prefer our closest relatives to others, and that is simply human nature that can’t be overridden by consensus.

Sooner or later some clan, usually the strongest, will simply take over. History bears this out. Ghengis Khan is an example. Rothbard refers to the state as a criminal gang. I accept that, and so I expect that any territory with enough people will eventually succumb to will of some criminal gang. In fact, that usually defines the territory itself. It’s how nations get their names.

While it is possible, in theory, and perhaps there have been a few examples of an anarchic society, like the above-mentioned Iceland, I posit that such cases are not long lasting, and are quite the exception.


Lisa Casanova December 29, 2006 at 1:34 pm

Sam,
Welcome to the Mises blog! If it helps, I’m a 5-foot tall woman who used to get pushed around a lot in school. It was a public school, and no one stuck up for me except me. I learned a lesson from that about the ability of government insitutions to protect you from even the pettiest assaults. I’ve never been self-employed, but I am a low-paid grad student. I don’t necessarily believe that people are basically good, which is precisely the reason they are not fit to wield power over each other. I’m no grumpy merchant, just someone who believes the state cannot and never will uphold the freedom and dignity of all individuals. If you truly fear the unchecked evil in people, there is a fundamental illogic in asking a state made up of these same people to protect you from the evil in other people!

Björn Lundahl December 29, 2006 at 6:26 pm

Lisa Casanova

“I don’t necessarily believe that people are basically good, which is precisely the reason they are not fit to wield power over each other. I’m no grumpy merchant, just someone who believes the state cannot and never will uphold the freedom and dignity of all individuals. If you truly fear the unchecked evil in people, there is a fundamental illogic in asking a state made up of these same people to protect you from the evil in other people!”

Well said and very true!

Björn Lundahl

Björn Lundahl December 29, 2006 at 6:37 pm

The Austrian Economics Newsletter

Austrians and the Private-Property Society

An Interview with Hans-Hermann Hoppe

AEN: Yet Mises attacks anarchism in no uncertain terms.

HOPPE: His targets here are left-utopians. He attacks their theory that man is good enough not to need an organized defense against the enemies of civilization. But this is not what the private-property anarchist believes. Of course, murderers and thieves exist. There needs to be an institution that keeps these people at bay. Mises calls this institution government, while people who want no state at all point out that all essential defensive services can be better performed by firms in the market. We can call these firms government if we want to.

http://mises.org/journals/aen/aen198.asp

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden

Björn Lundahl December 29, 2006 at 6:48 pm

The power of ideas.

” . . . the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.”

The last half of the last paragraph in John Maynard Keynes’s book General Theory of Employment Interest and Money.

That ideas rules the world is one of the very few correct ideas that John Maynard Keynes probably ever had.

Human Action:

“The nineteenth-century success of free trade ideas was effected by the theories of classical economics. The prestige of these ideas was so great that those whose selfish class interests they hurt could not hinder their endorsements by public opinion and their realization by legislative measures. It is ideas that make history, and not history that makes ideas.”

Ludwig von Mises

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap3sec3.asp#p84

A hereby quote a proposition made by Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

“States, as powerful and invincible as they might seem, ultimately owe their existence to ideas and, since ideas can in principle change instantaneously, states can be brought down and crumble practically overnight.”

http://www.freelythinking.com/quotes.htm

I hereby quote from the book “The Ethics of Liberty”, by Murray Rothbard:

“Ideology has always been vital to the continued existence of the State, as attested by the systematic use of ideology since the ancient Oriental empires. The specific content of the ideology has, of course, changed over time, in accordance with changing conditions and cultures. In the Oriental despotisms, the Emperor was often held by the Church to be himself divine; in our more secular age, the argument runs more to “the public good” and the “general welfare.”But the purpose is always the same: to convince the public that what the State does is not, as one might think, crime on a gigantic scale, but something necessary and vital that must be supported and obeyed. The reason that ideology is so vital to the State is that it always rests, in essence, on the support of the majority of the public. This support obtains whether the State is a “democracy,” a dictatorship, or an absolute monarchy. For the support rests in the willingness of the majority (not, to repeat, of every individual) to go along with the system: to pay the taxes, to go without much complaint to fight the State’s wars, to obey the State’s rules and decrees. This support need not be active enthusiasm to be effective; it can just as well be passive resignation. But support there must be. For if the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang. Hence the necessity of the State’s employment of ideologists; and hence the necessity of the State’s age-old alliance with the Court Intellectuals who weave the apologia for State rule”.

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentytwo.asp

“Human history is in essence a history of ideas.” (H.G. Wells)

“In every great time there is some one idea at work which is more powerful than any other, and which shapes the events of the time and determines their ultimate issues.” – Francis Bacon

Because of the power of ideas, the following can be concluded:

If an amount of people that supports the state is great enough, the state will be powerful.

If an amount of people that supports the democratic principle is great enough, the democratic principle will be powerful.

If an amount of people that supports communism is great enough, communism will be powerful.

If an amount of people that supports religion is great enough, religion will be powerful.

If an amount of people that supports libertarian ethics is great enough, libertarian ethics will be powerful.

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden

Sam December 30, 2006 at 12:59 am

To Björn Lundahl:

If an amount of people that supports xxxxx is great enough, the yyyyy will be powerful.

Then one can presume that if any State is a Mafia organisation that demands tributes or else then the major amount of people are Mafia-loving, tax loving people if we are to presume States to be strong.

Björn Lundahl December 30, 2006 at 3:19 am

Sam

Sam”If an amount of people that supports xxxxx is great enough, the yyyyy will be powerful.
Then one can presume that if any State is a Mafia organisation that demands tributes or else then the major amount of people are Mafia-loving, tax loving people if we are to presume States to be strong.”

Björn, as Rothbard stated: “For the support rests in the willingness of the majority (not, to repeat, of every individual) to go along with the system: to pay the taxes, to go without much complaint to fight the State’s wars, to obey the State’s rules and decrees. This support need not be active enthusiasm to be effective; it can just as well be passive resignation.”

Well, this support rest, of course and “happily”, on ignorance. That is why we had, for example, the great depression. Most people did not, really want it, but they probably did support those destructive policies that caused the depression. Do you see what I mean?

One other “great thing” is that the mafia and its supporters know that they are criminals the state and its supporters does not. We have an extremely awkward situation here.

As Rothbard also have stated: “For if the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang. Hence the necessity of the State’s employment of ideologists; and hence the necessity of the State’s age-old alliance with the Court Intellectuals who weave the apologia for State rule.”

Alternative and in other words, Lysander Spooner:

“The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.”

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentytwo.asp#_ftnref6

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden

Sam December 30, 2006 at 4:26 am

Indeed, passive resignation, could be a glue that holds States together. Perhaps it sounds something like ‘I don’t like the State but my standard living is higher than taking my chances living in the forest’.

Peter December 30, 2006 at 5:44 am

What about “I don’t like the state, and I recognize that I’d be inconceivably better off without it, but I’m also aware that to get from here to there puts me at considerable risk of getting beaten up, shot at, abused, and quite possibly killed, so I live with it”. Who said anything about living in a forest?

Björn Lundahl December 30, 2006 at 6:26 am

Sam

“Indeed, passive resignation, could be a glue that holds States together. Perhaps it sounds something like ‘I don’t like the State but my standard living is higher than taking my chances living in the forest’.”

States and societies are not the same thing. People want to live in societies because they want to prosper and to enjoy comfortable lives etc. But prosperity is based on the free market and not on the state. Without the market, only some of us would probably live in the forest and the rest of us would not live at all.

Björn Lundahl

Sam December 30, 2006 at 6:40 am

I said ‘living in the forest’ because I find it very difficult to believe people can have an advanced society without a ‘State’. Primarily because people don’t get along at all in high population densities hence cities tend to be more violent than rural areas. Perhaps its something to do with an anonymous mugger robbing someone and disappearing into the darkness versus a quaint country village where everyone knows one another. Or maybe people like living in tribes but don’t like bumping into other tribes. Perhaps cities are violent cause there are many tribes but rural towns tend to few, if only one, tribes.

Björn Lundahl December 30, 2006 at 7:29 am

Sam

I think you would feel safe enough if all property including streets were privately owned. In Sweden we have shopping centres that are privately owned and guarded, surely, this is more common in the U.S. I feel safer there than on public streets. But if this is so why not apply the same principle to the whole country? If a lot of people support a libertarian ethic, the moral would, obviously also, be better. Older generations had more of that moral, and law and order were much better when they were young. This together with protection agencies will do the trick.

The main thing is not to doubt, but to support. If we go on doubting, nothing could work, but if we support liberty instead of the state, we will have justice, peace and prosperity.

Now I will go to a private shopping centre and return some Christmas presents that I got from my twin sister. I hope that I will not be mugged.

Björn Lundahl

David White December 30, 2006 at 8:18 am

Sam writes:

“I find it very difficult to believe people can have an advanced society without a ‘State’.”

As no amount of reasoning can penetrate Sam’s intellect — including the fact that the state won’t allow a stateless society to be attempted within its confines (which to me sufficiently telling) — suffice it to say that doubters like Sam are as much a part of the problem as the state itself. For to shrug off the state’s criminality as a byproduct of its necessity is all it needs to sustain itself.

And to enslave man accordingly.

Sam December 30, 2006 at 8:56 am

You know where my line of reasoning came from D. White. I didn’t justify a ‘State’ per se, rather I questioned, as per previous blogs, everyone else. Criminality exists with or without a ‘State’.

Nonetheless, last time I looked small population clusters are more peaceful than large clusters. Maybe because leaders in a small cluster are elected by everyone in the town hall and are easily accountable to everyone and perhaps are even volunteers. In large clusters, ‘leaders’ are less accountable because a national meeting of millions and millions is darn near impossible.

Perhaps self-rule then would break up the large population into small lil accountable clusters and everyone can have say and everyone’s happy or something.

Björn Lundahl December 30, 2006 at 10:01 am

Well, I did not get mugged.

The idea is that if people support a libertarian ethic just as much as they used to do when they supported the state, everything will work much better than today. Protection agencies, insurers etc will cooperate peacefully. Minorities including minor “protection agencies” that violate the law will be as weak as minorities are today when they violate state laws.

If such a society would not be a success and people started to beat each other up, it would not prove that this statement was wrong, it would only prove that people did not support libertarian laws as much as they once did when they supported the state and its laws.

To argue that this is not so etc will, also, only legitimate the state and therefore the support of the state. I think it is very wise to be careful with what we say.

Björn Lundahl

David White December 30, 2006 at 10:50 am

Sam:

You’re talking about the human scale versus what results from overstepping it, which every modern state does. To quote philosopher Donald Livingston in his brilliant essay “Dismantling Leviathan” (Harper’s, May 2002):

“The monster states created by modernity are not necessary for economic or political freedom for the flourishing of culture; taking their history as a whole, they responsible for spectacular losses of both. Aristtotle was right: the presumption must be on behalf of human scale.”

That’s why a stateless (private property based) society is much to be preferred, as it alone is conducive to human scale organization. One need only look at the internet to know that this is so. For even though the human scale can be global in its reach, encompassing virtually every individual on the planet, it does so by empowering individuals, not restraining them, which every state must do in order to perpetuate its existence.

As for crime, while it would surely exist in a stateless society, it too would be on a human scale, unlike the “monster” scale on which crime is perpetrated today. And simply put, to fail to make this distinction is to fail utterly to understand why the state, far from being necessary, is the least necessary of human institutions, never mind how passively resigned to it the mass of mankind is.

Björn Lundahl December 30, 2006 at 12:04 pm

David White

Well, said!

Björn Lundahl

Björn Lundahl December 30, 2006 at 12:42 pm

Sorry, I think my above comment was a little wrongly formulated. I will try again:

“Well, I did not get mugged.

The idea is that if people support a libertarian ethic just as much as they used to support the state, everything will work much better than today. Protection agencies, insurers etc will cooperate peacefully. Minorities including minor “protection agencies” that violate the law will be as weak as minorities are today when they violate state laws.

If such a society would not be a success and people started to beat each other up, it would not prove that this statement was wrong, it would only prove that people did not support libertarian laws as much as they once did support the state and its laws.

To argue that this is not so etc will, also, only legitimate the state and therefore the support of the state. I think it is very wise to be careful with what we say.”

Björn Lundahl

Björn Lundahl December 30, 2006 at 6:51 pm

I get the feeling that some people might believe that if the state would be enthusiastically and passionately supported this would by itself justify the existence of a state. I would instead believe that it would make the matter, morally, even worse. If the mafia, for example, enthusiastically and passionately robs and kills their victims, would this passion justify their actions or would it make the matter, morally, even worse?

Secondly, if they are so passionate about their actions, it would probably be even more difficult to convince them that their actions are bad and wrong.

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden

Björn Lundahl January 2, 2007 at 6:41 am

An Animated Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty:

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html

The animation in full-sized window:

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: