All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 28, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
37:06
388 Family State and Intellectuals
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon everybody.
Hope you're doing well. It's Steph.
It's 1.54 on the 28th.
We are cleaning our bathrooms and cleaning our minds while I'm cleaning my bathroom.
Hopefully I can take a stab at cleaning both our minds.
Because a problem has been posed on the board that has been the subject of some very interesting debates over the last little while.
And I don't have a solution for it, I know.
I know that's shocking, but I really don't.
And so I thought it might be worth taking a mild stab at working through the problem so that either I can come up with something, however unlikely this may be, I can come up with something that may be considered helpful.
Or, at least I can delineate the problem so that when you think about it or post on it, you can at least know what the problem is.
And so some people have been fabulously persistent, and I really appreciate it in helping me to understand a limitation or a problem in my own thinking.
And I really, really appreciate that.
It's always the kindest and most neighborly and brotherly thing that you can do for anyone is to help them out of error.
So... I'll give a brief delineation of the problem, of the objections, and then I will give a delineation of why I can't solve it.
And hopefully the magic brain mushrooms will sprout and we'll come up with something approximating a solution, but there's never any guarantee of that.
Anyway, so the question is around the relationship between The treatment of children and the violence of the state.
So a nice, juicy, well-delineated free-domain radio topic.
And it goes sort of something like this.
So I've been making the case recently that...
The evils in society result from the false education of children.
And of course this goes all the way back to a very early podcast I did on the idea that teaching children religious concepts is child abuse, which generated a fair amount of oh-so-positive communications from the outside world.
But the question is sort of this.
The general...
The axiomatic evil in a sort of libertarian or rational philosophy is that the initiation of the use of force is the primary and base evil.
And fraud is a subset of force and so on.
But the initiation of the use of force is the primary evil in a rational philosophy, certainly in libertarian philosophy, let's say.
Now, teachers, as we've been talking about, sort of public school teachers and so on, have...
Not historically initiated the kind of force that, say, a marine would or a policeman will if you don't pay your taxes, right?
So if you don't pay your taxes, then the cops come to your house, and if you defend against them as you would against any other intruder, as I've mentioned before, they will shoot you, and of course, not only will they not be prosecuted, but they may in fact get a Medal of Honor of Freedom and so on.
And so that kind of violence is very direct and very immediate and is considered by many, and certainly myself, to be the primary cause, like the primary evil.
The primary evil is pointing a gun and shooting someone, not saying to children that...
The government is a hero, right?
Because to some degree, of course, the question of teaching children opinions falls into the realm of free speech, and you wouldn't want to regulate or legislate any of this kind of stuff, right?
So if pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, or being willing to pull the trigger, is the primary evil, then I sort of was making the case that the primary evil...
is not that of the teachers, but that of the soldiers and the policemen and, of course, the parents and all of those who are willing to use violence directly against children or against citizens as a whole.
So that seemed like a fairly consistent position, at least somewhat.
And the problem, of course, that has been pointed out by our blessed board brethren and sistren is that I have also made the case that As I did on the show on Sunday, that it is the evils of the intellectuals insofar as the intellectuals have put forward false moral arguments as if they're true.
That is really the fundamental reason why the world is in the shape that it is in.
So the reason that the world is in such a mess is because intellectuals have put forward false moral arguments as if they were true and have not employed full disclosure and have also not used the same methodology that they themselves would approve of and appreciate.
So if somebody puts forward a moral argument, obviously they're saying that moral arguments are better than force because they're not holding you like you didn't sort of ride around the countryside with a pistola threatening to shoot people who didn't agree in the categorical imperative.
So an intellectual who then uses argument and who then contradicts his own stated implicit or explicit values is guilty of hypocrisy and so on.
And so those two arguments are contradictory, I believe.
And I mean, I believe this, again, because the most honored board members have been pleasantly persistent in helping me sort of understand this contradiction.
And so I find myself in a bind.
And of course we always want to get to the root of evil, not sort of nag about its symptoms, but instead to deal with its root causes.
If the root causes of violence are bad ideas, or incorrect or illogical ideas, then the most evil thing, which, right, the first cause of evil must be the most evil thing.
The first cause of evil must be bad ideas.
Therefore, the greatest evil must be spreading bad ideas.
But if the greatest evil is spreading bad ideas...
Then, theoretically, the self-defense that one could deploy in opposing these bad ideas could legitimately, I think, be argued to be shooting intellectuals who spread false ideas.
So, the logic, at least as I perceive it, of the position...
Does produce a sort of problem that I don't feel comfortable with.
And of course, my lack of comfort with the position has nothing to do with its veracity.
I'm just sort of, in the general interest of full disclosure, pointing out that herein lies a logical problem that makes me feel kind of oogie, you know, to use a psychologically precise term.
I don't like the idea of shooting people for the production of bad ideas, but at the same time, if the world is in the state that it's in, because people have produced bad ideas, then if bad ideas are the primary cause of evil, then they are the worst evil.
If bad ideas are the worst evil, Then self-defense in the realm of bad ideas would be shooting intellectuals in some manner or shooting corrupt or pseudo-intellectuals and so on.
And I don't like that idea, basically.
I mean, this could be... It doesn't mean it's wrong.
It just means that I have to sort of either work out that I have a problem with the...
Emotionally, just based on sort of...
Maybe it's all propaganda that I've been talked to about sort of free speech and so on.
And we certainly...
Don't have any problem, in particular, let's just sort of take the general paradigm of the state for the moment, just because I don't want to introduce too many wrinkles all at once, but I don't want to keep this sort of like a Lance Hendrickson philosophy discussion, all too wrinkled for words, but we don't have any problem at a sort of basic ethical level shooting people for saying things that are, you know, saying things or doing things that are not violent.
So, for instance, if Just to take the standard example if a doctor is prescribing medicine that is getting people killed and the doctor is falsely prescribing medicine then I think it would be fair to say that you could apply in the standard sort of system as we have now you could sue that doctor for prescribing medicine that he knew was going to kill you You could sue that doctor,
and if the doctor didn't pay up, then you would be able to send the cops over to arrest him, and if he resisted, then you could shoot him.
This is a doctor just sitting across a desk, making recommendations for treatment, writing prescriptions and so on, while all the while knowing that these treatments are going to kill you.
And he's not lifting a finger, he's just sitting there talking and writing.
But directly responsible for that, even though you put the pills in your own mouth, there is the problem that he seems to be, at least sort of at a gut level, complicit in your death, if not directly responsible for your death.
And that would seem to be a fairly important thing to sort of understand, that we allow for the use of violence against people who, let's just say, misspeak a tad in the realm of This kind of harm to life, I guess you could say. So a doctor who prescribes you bad medication with knowledge of it is culpable for the resulting harm that accrues to you physically.
So I can certainly see situations wherein somebody who prescribes something that is bad is going to be responsible and can be aggressed against, yea, even unto the point of shooting him.
Or her. So I can certainly see that if we sort of put philosophers in the realm of doctors, philosophers who put forward ideas that result in vast expansions of state power and so on, could be viewed as the doctors of society prescribing or advocating ideas which result in The mass slaughter, death, murder, mayhem, and so on of mankind.
Certainly, you know, I think that the worst serial killer from a medical standpoint, like just a doctor's standpoint, some guy in England I think is supposedly responsible for, I don't know, like 100, 150 deaths kind of thing.
Now that, of course, is...
An hour's worth of work for a competent communist philosopher who managed in the 20th century to get things like Soviet Russia and communist China and all of the other lovely dictatorships that resulted from the ideas certain philosophers put forward.
So, if we're going to say that the prescription of a medicine that results in harm to the patient is...
And can be aggressed against from a violence standpoint in terms of retaliation, then I think we at least have opened the door to the idea that words that cause harm can be aggressed against from a physical violence standpoint.
Okay, so we'll keep plowing forward.
It does make me a tad uncomfortable, of course, but I would still...
We'll keep plowing on and sort of see where it ends up and see if anything useful comes out of looking at it from this standpoint.
So... The problem for me is that there's this really tight loop between intellectuals, the state, and the hitman, right?
I mean, this is sort of the central problem.
This is why it all lasts so long, and I'm not going to say that I can immediately extract the solution, but the problem as I see it, the circularity of the problem is pretty tight and pretty intense, as you would expect, of course, from a statist kind of situation that has lasted for many thousands of years.
So the state...
We'll just use a sort of particular example from history, that the state has the guns, or the swords, or whatever, and the state has the weaponry.
And it has people willing to use it.
Now, why are people willing to use weaponry on behalf of the state?
Because they're taught by the intellectuals that it is virtuous to do so.
So, to take a simple and obvious example, in the Middle Ages, the popes had a habit of saying that the king was placed on his throne by God, and obedience to God was the greatest virtue.
And because the king was placed on his throne by God, Then obedience to the king was also the greatest virtue.
And this meant that the intellectuals were paid by the kings.
In this case, the intellectuals happened to be the priestly caste.
The intellectuals were paid by the state, basically in order to crank out people willing to use violence on behalf of the state.
And because people were willing to use violence on behalf of the state, the state had money to pay more intellectuals who then produced more cops and soldiers to get more money out of the state, which meant that the state, you know, I think you get the general cycle.
And this is a pretty significant problem to work through, because it's pretty tight as far as the sort of breaking out of it scenario goes, and we all know that as far as those of us who've debated anarchy or libertarian philosophy with others.
I mean, it's really hard for people who are self-funded to compete with the intellectuals that are paid by the state, right?
I mean, I've been listening to Mark Skousen's History of Modern Economics, and there's a great question, you know, he sort of poses.
I don't think he answers it very satisfactorily, which is, why did Keynesianism become so popular relative to classical liberalism?
And to me, the answer is simple.
I mean, that doesn't mean that it's right.
It just means, to me, the answer is simple.
that Kintinism became very popular because it justified expansions of state power, and those within the state are always very keen to find and promote intellectuals who justify The expansion of state power.
I mean, this is, as I've always said, the statists are far better at understanding ethics than we are, right?
We fight amongst ourselves about whether we should drink government-subsidized water, and the government people, the statists, are out there paying intellectuals to make arguments for morality.
about the eternal beauty and moral justification of state power.
So it's always been a little frustrating to me that we have so much infighting.
But in this case, certainly these kinds of persistent questions that were posed to me, Have proven extremely valuable.
So private individuals really can't compete against state-funded intellectuals, right?
This is why a lot of philosophers that are sort of pro-liberty and not benefiting any particular political party don't tend to get very much notice, right?
That's why you won't ever study Ayn Rand at university, and so on.
But the question then becomes, how do you break this cycle?
How do you break this cycle? It's a very difficult cycle to break, and I think it's something we all sort of fundamentally get and gives us a certain amount of occasional despair, I guess you could say, as libertarians, right?
How do you compete with all of the state, the billions of dollars of state funding that is poured into those intellectuals and universities and so on who all...
Wish to gain substantial state resources or resources of one kind or another through passionately advocating extensions or modifications of the status quo.
You can't very easily break into Academics, if you're an anarchist, right?
I mean, this is going to be rather tricky.
It's not impossible, of course, but even if you do, it's not going to be necessarily at Harvard, and so you're not necessarily going to win the Nobel Prize, because, you know, these are all things that are generally statist in content.
So, given that the state already has a pleasant stable of compliant and justifying intellectuals to prop up the moral arguments for their power, And that because these intellectuals are so effective in drumming up support for state power,
and have so effectively made the case for the moral virtue of state power, Taxpayers then voluntarily hand over their money, right?
I mean, if you look at it just from a pure economic standpoint, investing in intellectuals who talk about how virtuous state power is, is far cheaper and far more effective than not investing in intellectuals to talk about how great the state is.
But instead, investing in more cops and more soldiers and so on to make sure that...
The taxpayers who don't believe in...
Like, if you don't invest in intellectuals, then the taxpayers aren't going to believe in all of the automatic virtue of state power, which means that it's going to be much more expensive to keep the taxpayers in line.
You're going to have to have that much more threat of force.
You're going to have to hire that many more hitmen to threaten the taxpayers and so on.
So, from an investment standpoint, This is one of these investments that people in power make almost without thinking.
Everybody who's in power knows that he needs to have a good argument from morality as to why people should submit to his power.
And so everybody in power invests in intellectuals who provide to them that justification.
And it's sort of like if you were somebody who bred horses for people to write and you could get someone to write a great horse manifesto that would make the horses train themselves On how to do dressage and how to hold the rider and not step on them and not run and which way to do the reins, then you would definitely invest in that, right?
Because it would mean that you would have to spend so, so much less in the sort of training and coercion of every single horse.
You would have to spend an enormous amount less because the horses would read this manifesto and train themselves, right?
So you would definitely pay for that service.
And that's the very same thing that occurs, of course, with the intellectual class.
So, how do you break it?
Well, of course, if we could magically privatize the intellectual class, right?
So, basically, if we could make education and universities and so on private, then the intellectuals would be different, right?
I mean, you wouldn't have the same intellectuals in place.
In the same way that if you truly privatize a state Run agency, you're not going to have the same people in the management positions, right?
I mean, it's going to be very unlikely if they went around and privatized the U.S. Postal Service.
It seems quite unlikely that the Postmaster General would end up being the CEO of the new organization because, of course, he wouldn't know anything about the free market.
He wouldn't know anything about how to run a big, complex organization in the free market.
So his skills would immediately become Redundant.
And the same thing, in my view, would be the case with intellectuals.
So if we could sort of snap our fingers and tomorrow we would end up with a fully private educational system, then the intellectuals, the people who were the professors, would be swapped out.
They would have to go and get real jobs where they provided value to someone other than the slave masters who keep us all down.
So... If we could do that, then we would change the supply and demand for intellectuals quite considerably, and you would end up with quite a different class of intellectuals, right?
People who would actually have to be focused on rational truth rather than emotional prejudice, and who would have to be focused on logical examination of reality rather than making up fairy tales to justify the fact that we're all slaves and make it into some kind of imaginary virtue.
So... But the problem, of course, as I'm sort of combing over and over this, I hope that is not too repetitive.
The problem, of course, is that the reason that you can't snap your fingers and swap out the intellectual class that we currently have right now is because the intellectual class has defined themselves and, of course, the state as the ultimate in virtue.
So when you suggest privatizing all of this stuff...
You run up against all of the arguments that the intellectuals have spent the last couple of thousand years refining in the service of those in power.
So the cause and effect to me, breaking this cycle, becomes really complicated and challenging.
So, you can't privatize because the intellectuals own the debate, and the intellectuals own the debate because it's not privatized, right?
This is sort of the catch-22, or you could say the most vicious circles, that occurs within the realm of, within the land of intelligentsia, I guess you could say.
And the solution to that...
Seems to be rather problematic.
You know, I mean, it seems to be rather challenging.
It certainly is the case that people have enormously diminished and unpleasant lives because of the actions of the intellectuals, but it is also the case that I don't feel comfortable saying, well, the way that we do this is to shoot professors, right?
That doesn't seem to be the right approach.
Now, of course, the other people who are heavily involved in issues or questions of the prevalence of violence in the world are parents.
Now, one of the sort of multi-generational projects that I sort of have gotten underway with freedomainradio.com, which I don't think this is going to be any great shock to people who've listened to the podcast.
It's not like I've had... Any kind of nefarious ace up my sleeve that I am now revealing to you, my hapless puppets.
What I've been doing, of course, in...
Suggesting to people that if their relationship with their parents is unsatisfactory, that they should attempt to get the relationship to be something that is satisfactory, or they should get rid of it.
I mean, what I'm doing is applying the principles of economics.
It's not the only thing that I'm doing.
One of the things that I'm doing is applying basic economic principles to parental relationships with children and thus into the future of parenting.
A bit more in a multi-generational situation, but I think it's going to happen relatively quickly.
For those who get rid of their parents and then end up having their own children, they won't have the same kind of problem of exposing children to bad grandparents.
But basically, of course, a basic economic principle is that which you subsidize, you increase, and that which you tax, you decrease.
In other words, what you fund, you get more of.
It's basic supply and demand, slightly reversed.
What you fund, you get more of, and what you don't fund, you get less of.
As we're all aware, when we look at products that didn't quite make it, the Duke Coke, the Edsel, and so on, People didn't fund them, and so the behavior that produced them was redirected to more productive things.
Now, what I've of course been trying to do in my podcasts about parental relationships is I'm attempting to convince people to quit subsidizing bad parenting.
Sort of a basic fundamental thing that anyone who's spent any time analyzing the free market will recognize is about the most effective thing to do to change behavior is to quit funding that behavior which you Dislike, right?
Of course, our enemies perfectly understand this because they fund things like public schools which corrupt the children, which produce all of these wonderful people who are willing to use violence on the state's behalf, and all these wonderful intellectuals who feel that they can condemn the German propagandists all they want and then turn around and produce things like Rawls' theory of justice and Keynesian economics and so on.
Because, you see, that's so, so much different.
Anyway, so...
When I'm talking about the need or the ethics of ditching bad parenting, what I'm trying to do, of course...
is to quit subsidizing bad parenting and to instead begin to subsidize good parenting, right?
So if your parents are good to you, then you want, you know, I certainly suggest sticking around them and loving them up and being happy that they're in your life, and that's great.
So you're subsidizing good parenting by your continued time, attention, and of course resources when you get older, right?
But if you hang around with bad parents and give them resources as they age and get ill and so on, Then you're subsidizing a bad parenting, and then, of course, you have no particular moral right to claim that the world is in bad shape when you yourself are subsidizing the very people who are of the very principles that are a central reason why the world is in such a bad shape.
But, of course, very few parents invent parenting all on their own.
I mean, this is where it gets very complicated, right?
And this is why it's such a difficult, unholy trinity, state intellectuals and parents.
It's such an unholy trinity to try and undo.
So this is the thorny knot that I'm trying to work with, however successfully or unsuccessfully in this podcast, and probably for a little bit of time to come.
Which is, how on earth are we going to unravel this knot?
Well, the first thing, of course, is, you know, quit supporting, quit subsidizing bad behavior.
I mean, that would be the very first thing that you can do immediately, right?
You and I can't change the intellectual nature of state-funded or state-sponsored intellectuals, of course, but we certainly can, within our own lives, quit subsidizing those who have done us harm or who are irrational or corrupt and so on.
And that seems to me, you know, a good and essential first step.
When you get corrupt relationships out of your life, that's going to be kind of a productive thing.
I also do think that, you know, this is a sort of fight club scenario, I guess, but I do think that as the word gets out, that there is a zero tolerance for child abuse, right?
I mean, this is why it's important to tell your story about why, and not just to people on the Freedom Aid radio board, but to other people, tell your story about why you're ditching your parents, right?
As the word gets out across the land, across the world, that bad parents can expect no support from their children when they get older, then at least bad parents will have some criteria by which then at least bad parents will have some criteria by which they're a little more responsible for the badness of their Because currently, right now, I mean, parents are both a moral and biological monopoly, right?
can expect no support from their children when they get older, then at least bad parents will have some criteria by which they're a little more responsible for the badness of their parenting.
Because currently, right now, I mean, parents are both a moral and biological monopoly, right?
I mean, they're a state union of the very worst kind.
They can't get fired, right?
We always owe them resources, whether they do a good or bad job.
You know, there's nobody else.
They have an innate virtue just based on their existence.
And so, of course, you're going to get bad behavior, right?
In the same way that you get bad behavior in a gulag from the gods, right, who have a monopoly, a moral and legal monopoly in that case, not just a biological monopoly, although in the case of parents, based on the semi-ownership of children, it's a legal monopoly as well.
And just as you get worse service from government unions, or government-protected, even private unions, than you would from a purely free market solution, wherever you have a monopoly, you end up with bad behavior.
I mean, worse, non-optimal, non-reactive, non-responsive behavior.
So as people begin to ditch their bad parents...
Then what's happening is we're beginning to make a free market in the family.
That's sort of the fundamental goal of what it is that I'm trying to do, is to put forward the arguments to create a free market in the family.
In other words, to remove the automatic monopoly of virtue and you must give me and I am your...
I want to remove, of course, that as a moral criteria and to create a free market in personal relationships.
That's sort of my particular goal, and it's, I think, not a bad way to begin this process.
And it's the only thing that I could really think of as the most effective thing to do.
Certainly yelling at the government isn't going to help, and yelling at intellectuals aren't going to help, because I mean, who is going to sit there and say, yes, okay, I'm a state-funded, corrupt, parasitical, intellectual leech, but now that I've understood these arguments for the free market,
I'm going to give up my entire life's investment in my education, and I'm going to quit my job at Harvard, where I have tenure and get sabbaticals and summers off, and I'm going to go and work in a deli and write for free for lourockwell.com.
Well, there's not many people who are going to make that kind of trade.
In fact, I can guarantee you that somebody who's comfortable being a state-sponsored parasitical leech on the freedoms and clear thinking of mankind is in no way, shape, or form ever going to make that deal.
So that's not going to work.
Now, even if...
We can prove these people wrong, and this is sort of important to understand so you don't feel like you're bad at arguing, right?
Even if we can prove these people wrong, and in any debate in particular, it's not that hard to prove these people wrong, right?
Because they don't argue, right?
I mean, these modern intellectuals, especially the professors, right?
They don't argue. They simply manipulate existing emotional symbols, right?
Using arguments from ad hominem and all these arguments from authority, right?
But basically, it's an argument from inertia, right?
Well, everybody knows that the roads, blah, blah, blah, can't be run by the private sector, and so on.
These are not arguments, right?
This is just something that gets repeated over and over again, and they just cash into it, right?
So, they're not going to be able to win an argument, but of course, even if I were to debate, I don't know, some prima donna at Harvard...
I would definitely win the debate, not because I'm so brilliant, but just because I think my thoughts are a little bit more clear and consistent than anybody who argues for the value of violence as a means of solving problems.
But what would it matter?
Like, fundamentally, what would it matter?
So, I beat this guy in a debate, doesn't really matter, because he's getting money from the government.
Or, you know, the people that he's training, if it would be in the realm of political science, are all hoping to get jobs in government.
And so the government is still going to continue to have all the tax money that it wants to pay the intellectuals to convince the average person that there's...
No virtue and value greater than the use of violence by the state.
So it wouldn't hugely matter any more than it matters from an economic standpoint if I end up proving that state unions are inefficient.
So state unions are inefficient and they raise the price of everything and the free market could do it for like a quarter of the cost and a quarter of the time.
Let's say I prove that incontrovertibly.
So what? Then everybody kind of understands it, but it's not like the state unions are going to dissolve tomorrow, because there's just no way people are going to give up their lifelong income and salary.
And if the state unions did, you could conceivably make strong arguments for restitution based on the increased wages from monopolies and so on.
But this basic problem still remains.
That we can prove all the intellectuals wrong, but because the intellectuals have already raised a generation of people willing to use force to maintain state power, the intellectuals who talk about You know, I don't support the war, but I support the troops and all this kind of nonsense.
Those intellectuals, who've already raised this generation, that generation is still going to be there.
And cops are not going to sit there and say, oh, I'm an agency of brute violence of the state.
Well, gee, I guess I am, just like a hitman.
And I'm going to quit and go and become a security guard for Walmart, right?
That's not going to happen.
So, I think it is a multi-generational approach.
I would say that the first thing, since I do believe that The power of the state is derived from the power of the family, and also to some degree, of course, the power of education within state schools.
But, you know, the first thing to do is to break the primary monopoly, the most emotional monopoly.
People have stronger emotional associations with their families, of course, than they do with their schools or even their country.
So the first thing to do is to break that primary monopoly, And that is, over time, I think, going to begin to change the other monopolies.
But I certainly don't think that...
Oh, it doesn't feel quite right shooting intellectuals, even though the intellectuals raise people and justify, from a moral standpoint, state power, which, of course, is the greatest destroyer of human life in history...
That those ideas which directly result in a whole horde of people unable to think for themselves, willing to use violence on behalf of the state, or at least who are blind to the evils of the violence that the state uses, is the central cause of evil and corruption in the world.
Therefore, it seems to be even more evil than those who use guns.
But that creates a whole host of problems that I'll sort of have to put more thought into.
Maybe a DRO society would solve this kind of thing, and maybe what we need to do is not look at the transition, but what comes at the very end of these things.
But I certainly won't make any claim to have done other than delineate the problem so far.
And I hope at least that that delineation has been helpful.
It certainly has been for me, but let me put a few more...
Jewels of mental energy into this particular question.
And also, let me wait and see what the collective Borg wisdom of the board has to say about this issue, because I'm sure that the hyper-intelligent people who work in Free Domain Radio boards will help me with this particular problem.
Thank you so much for listening.
I look forward to your donations.
Please check out on the Free Domain Radio website.
There's now an entry for videos.
which has the series on Introduction to Philosophy, which I'm working on, and I hope that you will come and check that out.
I got a $3 donation this morning.
I would certainly appreciate a little bit more.
I had some very generous ones late last week, which I appreciate.
▲
Export Selection