Think of the Children!

25 01 2009

I didn’t think it would come to this.  I honestly didn’t.  But perhaps it is time for me to float a possibly revolutionary idea.  Something that stands in contradiction to a certain idea that crops up among certain circles from time to time.  This idea is so profound that I never thought I’d have to say it in such times as these.  Indeed, I thought the debate was settled and it was considered common knowledge, but for the record, allow me to repeat it: Children are people too.

Shocked? Appalled? Yes? No?

Well whatever it may be, this thought will probably not come as a surprise to many who will read this.  What will come as a surprise to you, however, will be the idea that children are the property of their parents, still exists and rears its head every once and a while.  The notion that children inherently belong to their parent is dangerous and violates the philosophical principles we have evolved to protect the autonomy of the individual.  After all, children are human beings and to uphold the liberty of one portion of society to the detriment of another is an injustice, not to mention a breach of universality and/or equality.

Though I do not pretend to have all the answers, (I never have and would never dream to) the role of the parent or guardian is to serve as both a ward and to provide for their offspring an easy transition into autonomous life.  Both roles are essential and are commonly forgotten or abused in cases where a parent neglects a child to the point of starvation or, alternatively, becomes over protective to the point of locking their child away.  Each disrespects the individual liberty granted to the smallest of people and neither implies that the child is somehow property of the parent.  A child’s dependence does not make them akin to a piece of furniture or family pet.  No, children simply depend on the parent for survival.

It is all too often implied in these debates that the initial conception of a child, the initial act of creation between two parents, means that the product is naturally the property of the parents, just as a toy soldier would be the property of its creator, a wood carver.  However, this implied assumption holds that sex is no different from labour, which is absurd.  I’m quite sure you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who would consider sex labour, unless of course the relationship is downright awful.  Regardless, if we are to consider this thought, it becomes necessary to place some time restriction which results in the parents no longer possessing total control over the child from then on.  However, to produce some arbitrary number (as governments worldwide do, generally at the ages of 18 or 21) and claim that a child becomes an ‘adult’ from that point onwards, is just as bizarre.  Each individual is unique and matures at different rates, some quicker than others.  We see the effects of such arbitrary distinctions when the legal system commits such atrocities as prosecuting teenagers for exploring their sexuality.  Opposite from this is the idea put forward by Rothbard,

The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature—in short, when he leaves or “runs away” from home.The Ethics of Liberty

Which raises the question, what happens when we have an individual of age 23, still living at home?  Are they still the property of their parent simply because they may not have the means to leave home without starving?  These individuals are fully developed individuals in both mind and body and so can be considered autonomous human beings to which we can each apply our differing philosophical principles.  However, according to Rothbard’s approach they are still, strangely, considered the property of their parents.

Further, when presented with the idea of slavery, any Anarchist worth his salt will immediately reject the concept as barbarous, for slavery has been explicitly rejected and opposed by Anarchists since its inception.  Naturally, if we were to accept the idea that children are the property of their parents, it would be no different from claiming that a slave is legitimately the property of his master.  After all, property is the right to ‘use and abuse,’ which then leaves the door open to any injustice; paedophilia, murder, assault, forced child labour and prostitution all may then be considered philosophically legitimate just as a slave master may beat, rape and murder his slave.  The child could be forced to work for no wage in a business owned by its parent or taught to use a gun and employed as a unwilling child soldier.  If we oppose slavery so intensely, we must equally oppose the idea that a parent owns a child as evil, for the concept of property, even in its varying forms, is an absolute.

Once it is understood that a child is no different from any other person, the question becomes one of how to view the relationship between parent and child.  The answer lies in mutual aid, in that the parent raises and a child and assists it as someone may assist the elderly, homeless or ill.  This is made possible because, and as unlikely as it may sometimes seem, people actually do get something out of raising a child.  A parent often comes to value the unconditional love and affection that a child will all too freely give, even if the parent is unattractive, not very good at parenting, or generally an ass.

Obviously what follows are the cases where a parent may give up their stewardship of the child for lack of ability, interest and so on.  Naturally, this forms the basis of adoption and may, again, be considered mutual aid in that it prevents the child from suffering a harsh existence for the possibility of a better one when another parent is willing to take up the responsibility of assisting it.  Granted, the system of adoption and the state of orphanages world wide is fairly low, as many foster children often wind up the victims of abuse, or even suffer psychologically which impairs them later in life.  However, there is hope that wresting such processes away from the hands of the state will improve the way in which these dealings transpire, though I would not dare offer a blueprint for how this may be achieved.  I’ll leave that to those with the knowledge, experience and inspiration.

To allow ourselves to consider children to be property, we are giving them up to a position of servitude.  The parents are raised to a position of higher authority, no matter what good intentions lead to the argument that a parent’s power is restricted by time and degree.  Such an argument is contradictory if we understand property to be an absolute and yet still wish to recognise the inherent right to liberty, irrespective of what that property theory is founded upon.


Actions

Information

21 responses

25 01 2009
Francois Tremblay

Wow, you got no comments after this one? Guess people like you more than they like me. ;)

25 01 2009
Royce Christian

Well, this blog is just my little corner of the internet. I don’t expect fame and fortune from it.

26 01 2009
skeptic1

“The notion that children inherently belong to their parent is dangerous and violates the philosophical principles we have evolved to protect the autonomy of the individual.”

“No, children simply depend on the parent for survival.”

First, children depend on their parents for a lot more than their “survival.” They also depend on them for their love, affection, discipline and socialization. This is what makes humans different from barnyard animals.

Second, your statement, “if we were to accept the idea that children are the property of their parents, it would be no different from claiming that a slave is legitimately the property of his master” is about as asinine as any I’ve ever seen. Since children are not robbed of their freedom, kidnapped and forced into an existence of exploitation; and slave masters never developed a habit of enslaving their own children, your property analogy false.

Furthermore, because of their immaturity, children are indeed dependent persons and to refer to them in the context of “autonomy of the individual” is absurd.

If they are to be autonomous (independent), then they can not simutaneous be dependent on someone else for their sustenance. Therefore, the notion of children being dependent on and belonging to their parents is not nearly so dangerous as that of children belonging to the State. At least in the possession or custody of their parents, children are under the influence of a related human being that has a genetic interest in them as opposed to the State which can only view them as a means to an end.

26 01 2009
Francois Tremblay

Royce, quite the opposite, I meant that no one had criticized you for daring to speak against parenting yet. But hey, one idiot finally piped up to criticize! Good job Royce!

Talking about the idiot:

“Since children are not robbed of their freedom, kidnapped and forced into an existence of exploitation; and slave masters never developed a habit of enslaving their own children, your property analogy false.”

HAHAHAHA! Wow, talk about ignorance of history. Skeptic1, slave masters actually did routinely enslave the children they made with slave women. Secondly, children *are* robbed of their freedom and are often exploited, psychologically, sexually, for work, etc. And even if all of what you said was true, that wouldn’t make “the analogy” false because children *are* property.

“Furthermore, because of their immaturity, children are indeed dependent persons and to refer to them in the context of “autonomy of the individual” is absurd.”

Oh, get that? So no autonomous individual can depend on anyone for anything ever. By that definition, there’s no such thing as an autonomous individual.

“At least in the possession or custody of their parents, children are under the influence of a related human being that has a genetic interest in them as opposed to the State which can only view them as a means to an end.”

No parents treat their children as means to an end. The final hollow laugh in a breeder’s rant.

26 01 2009
skeptic1

“slave masters actually did routinely enslave the children they made with slave women.”

I wrote, “slave masters never DEVELOPED A HABIT of enslaving their own children”, so “your property analogy (is) false.”

Under slave law, Negro children took their status from their mother, you moron. They were not white and not considered by law the children of the slave master as were those children the slave master fathered with white women. Futhermore, mixed race children fathered by the white slave master were usually sold rather than routinely enslaved as you claim.

“So no autonomous individual can depend on anyone for anything ever.”
“No parents treat their children …..”

It seems that you can only babble using absolutes, Francis. Too bad that an imbecile like yourself has so little brain to manage the babble you produce.

26 01 2009
Francois Tremblay

“Under slave law, Negro children took their status from their mother, you moron. They were not white and not considered by law the children of the slave master as were those children the slave master fathered with white women.”

Which explains away what you said because…?

“Futhermore, mixed race children fathered by the white slave master were usually sold rather than routinely enslaved as you claim.”

HAHAHAHAHA! They were sold rather than enslaved? Are you really that fucking stupid?

“It seems that you can only babble using absolutes, Francis. Too bad that an imbecile like yourself has so little brain to manage the babble you produce.”

Shut up breeder, even writing these moronic arguments has exhausted your capacity to produce good snark. Get back to your sperm production so you can spout more little indentured servants for your own fucking ego.

Well at least you prove the “absolute” that breeders tend to be stupid people.

26 01 2009
Katie

The biggest violators of childrens rights are Attorney/court appointed Guardians who strip them of ALL rights and steal their inheritances. Happening more and more in Probate and family courts. These Attorney/GAL’s tear apart familys and bill their exhorbitant fees while parents are defamed by unfounded fabricated reports. This is a NEW digusting trend to allow abuse of authority and profiting. What happened to Justice? What happened to parental rights? what happened to children’s rights?

26 01 2009
R. L. Jakobsson

Children may not be the property of their parents, but adult children are the fruits of time spent rearing them. That time is the property of the parents. It belongs to them. It is their life, and so it remains until the kids leave the nest or begin pay their way at home.

Seems to me that parents, behaving as though they were owners (they are not, they are in fact stewards responsible to their Creator for following through on the reproductive act) have been raising kids for millennia, thank you very much, some succeeding and some failing miserably. Humankind has survived magnificently.

As you pointed out, not all parents excel at parenting. Neither may they excel at logic. Which is where you and I part ways. Who, pray tell, do you propose to fill the role of handicapper general, the omniscient one to define proper parenting skills?

Should one fail to meet your standards of reproductive success, do you propose to communize the kids to save them from their hooligan parents? You do not seem to propose to expose them. Will you then force others at the point of a gun to substitute for the parents, expending the time necessary to keep them alive and socialize them? How, exactly, is this supposed to work?

More to the point, why is it your business in the first place? On the bright side, the topic is just gossip. Figure out the dark side yourself.

RLJ

26 01 2009
Francois Tremblay

“Humankind has survived magnificently.”

If your goal is mere survival, then yes, humanity has survived. But given the horrors that child beatings, child torture, child sacrifice and child rape have unleashed to the world in the past millenias, I’d think you would steer as far away from appealing to history as you could.

26 01 2009
R. L. Jakobsson

Where, then, would you propose to steer? Stalinism? Child Protective Services?

And yes. Look around you. All of the endeavor you see about you has but one goal: Pushing life out 20 more years.

RLJ

26 01 2009
Rorshak (1313)

Yes, I think your article here is spot on.

I’m not fond of the Freudian view, but the family is the first place where children are exposed to authoritarianism and this is something that shouldn’t be ignored.

26 01 2009
Francois Tremblay

“Where, then, would you propose to steer? Stalinism? Child Protective Services?”

Most definitely not.

“And yes. Look around you. All of the endeavor you see about you has but one goal: Pushing life out 20 more years.”

Then fuck mankind. Live long and die out.

26 01 2009
Royce Christian

First things first,

There seems to be some confusion among people here regarding what I have written, so allow me to clear something up.

I am not attacking parents and I would never dream of it. I am not criticising parenting techniques, or any of that nonsense, for I am not a parent — though I would certainly like to have that experience in the future. I am, in fact, attacking that strain of thought out there that considers children to be the property of their parents. This is piece deals with theory, one which many others have looked into themselves, particularly Tucker and Rothbard. Obviously I don’t agree so much with either of them. Parents are wards, they’re to look out for their child, but they do not own their child.

Sceptic 1,

“First, children depend on their parents for a lot more than their “survival.” They also depend on them for their love, affection, discipline and socialization. This is what makes humans different from barnyard animals.”

That goes without saying and I would not dare to argue the opposite. However, it still does not justify the consideration that made by philosophers of different sorts that children are property and no better than furniture — which is what I am arguing against.

“Since children are not robbed of their freedom, kidnapped and forced into an existence of exploitation; and slave masters never developed a habit of enslaving their own children, your property analogy false.”

Yet many slaves, and to a lesser degree serfs, were born into their position and were taught from a young age to accept the status quo. However, if you oppose the owning of one human by another philosophically in one instance, you cannot turn around and then, all to quickly, suggest that it is right for one human to own another in another instance. If you wish to ground the relationship in property rights, in both circumstances neither are to be considered ‘property’ or both are.

“Furthermore, because of their immaturity, children are indeed dependent persons and to refer to them in the context of “autonomy of the individual” is absurd.”

And why is that? Simply because they are immature or incapable of managing all aspects of themselves, totally, we are to suddenly demote them to the level of inanimate objects or household pets? We can apply the same principles to other situations; if I become ill to the point where I can no longer function on my own and I become dependent on another, am I to suddenly be considered the property of that other? To be used and abused as the owner wills? That is what’s truly absurd.

“Therefore, the notion of children being dependent on and belonging to their parents is not nearly so dangerous as that of children belonging to the State.”

And where, pray tell, have I explicitly argued that the state should be given control of the children? To imply such is a slur.

I quite agree with other posters here that have pointed some of the many reasons why a child should never find themselves locked in the tentacles of the state. The state can barely provide basic services, let alone look after children. Further, I even point out that the state is absolutely useless when it comes to dealing with children in the article.

R. L. Jakobsson,

“Children may not be the property of their parents, but adult children are the fruits of time spent rearing them. That time is the property of the parents. It belongs to them. It is their life, and so it remains until the kids leave the nest or begin pay their way at home.”

There is a contradiction here, you consider a young adult to be no different to a barren field that’s been homestead to produce crops. But, if we are to follow your line of logic, why should it stop when the child leaves home or pays rent? If we are to base their relationship with their parent in property, the child is forever the property of their parent. If you seek to found individual rights in property, you can’t suddenly decide to temper it with some arbitrary restriction, such as when the child leaves home; either a child is never the property of their parent (and so their relationship must be explained in some other manner) or the child is forever the property of their parent.

“Seems to me that parents, behaving as though they were owners (they are not, they are in fact stewards responsible to their Creator for following through on the reproductive act) have been raising kids for millennia, thank you very much, some succeeding and some failing miserably. Humankind has survived magnificently.”

That may be so, but for centuries thinkers have been trying to understand human relationships. Just because centuries past have regarded children as property, and enforced ideas such as, ‘Children shall be seen and not heard,’ while believing it is just and right to beat a child, does not mean we should accept such positions silently in this day and age — and to a great extent we haven’t. This is my attempt to put another nail in the coffin.

“Who, pray tell, do you propose to fill the role of handicapper general, the omniscient one to define proper parenting skills?”

I do not agree with Francois complete opposition to ‘parenting’, and his distinction between ‘breeders’ and ‘non-breeders’. I have not proposed anywhere for the state to interfere and I would never intend to. What I have presented is an argument that, I hope, presents some challenge to those (primarily libertarians) who like to assert that parents own their children.

Such an endeavour is hardly an attempt to play God. But thank you for your input.

26 01 2009
Joan Boost

Let me go down to a more basic form of declaring children “Property”: Abortion!
If a person can decide over life or non-life of another person, in whatever state of development or social status, that is certainly taking up decisions which are, or should be, utterly and entirely the other person’s. Declaring: “It’s my body – I can do what I want” declares a child a non-entity, even if s/he can feel, sense, be alive in utero. The mid-birth abortion claims the child even rightless as long as s/he is still with only one toe inside the mother’s vagina (if that woman deserved the name of “mother”).
The N.O.W. went even further when they defended to the last ditch a woman who chased, caught, and drowned her five children. Andrea Yates claimed that ‘the devil’ had told her to do so – but that does not go with the fact that she did commit the crime planfully, using exactly the time she knew she had availablr for it: the 30 mintes between her husband going to work – and his mother arriving: she had prepared the killings! That is not a derangement beyond control. Something wrong – Yes. But control was certainly there.
But, to the point: It made it clear HOW MUCH MODERN POST-FEMINISM HAS DEVALUED EVERYTHING INTO POWER AND PROPERTY MATTERS!
Womanhood is only measured in pay-cheques – children are only a burden -men even further down, all rapists (see NOW), child molesters, and wife beaters.
Logically, if natural conception is always “rape”, then children (in- or ex utero) are nasty instruments of patriarchic oppression. Only children “bought” in semen-stores and self- or girfliend injected would not be rape-products – but: home-made PROPERTY. Like buying a new car or TV.
That’s where the whole misery starts – look at the “Mommy-Wars”! That’s what they were/are about:
Being a Woman -and a Man- means social responsibility, commitment, love.
The original true Feminists had that well in mind, and they would have abhorred the false selfcentred ego-trip that is N.O.W. the only hing remaining in the post-feminist disaster.
WOMEN -AND MEN- OF THE WORLD UNITE AND FIND HUMANITY AGAIN !!!

26 01 2009
skeptic1

R.C.: “Parents are wards, they’re to look out for THEIR child, but they do not own THEIR child.”

Their – poss. pronominal adj. :of, belonging to, or done by them.

When you use the word ‘their’ in this sentence, does it not denote ownership?

One would also assume that you would make a distinction between an adult child and a juvenile and their social and legal relationship to the parents.

Skeptic1: “Furthermore, because of their immaturity, children are indeed dependent persons and to refer to them in the context of “autonomy of the individual” is absurd.”

R.C. : “And why is that? Simply because they are immature or incapable of managing all aspects of themselves, totally, we are to suddenly demote them to the level of inanimate objects or household pets?”

I have not suggested that because children belong to certain parents they should be categorized as “inanimate objects or household pets.” Surely, you can understand that a parent- child relationship (although the child belongs to their parents) is not synonymous with that which exists between a pet owner and their pet.

R.C. : “We can apply the same principles to other situations; if I become ill to the point where I can no longer function on my own and I become dependent on another, am I to suddenly be considered the property of that other? To be used and abused as the owner wills? That is what’s truly absurd.”

I doubt that you would be considered the property of another. You certainly wouldn’t become the child of the person that took care of you. I think that you would become the responsibility of the State.

Finally, you seem to be obsessed with associating ownership with being “used and abused.” You shouldn’t be. I own several cats…and they live a charmed life. I feed them, shelter them, take them to the vet and even clean up their litter box. What more can you ask for?

26 01 2009
Rick Levandowski

As I read the article I expected the veering into the public debt which has been imposed upon the next generation(s) by the Ponzi schemes so common in post-FDR Amerika. Society today justifies almost anything if it saves one life or affects some nameless child somewhere yet the imposed fiduciary enslavement of the children seems ok. This dollar bondage affects their declining lifestyle and opportunity to pursue happiness as written in our Constitution. The next generation has a right to a lifestyle at least equal to that of the previous unimpeded by the selfishness of the same.
Just because the “Greatest Generation” saved the world for democracy doesn’t entitle them to compromise the edicts of the social contract between generations just as the wrongs of LBJ’s “Great Society” of wealth re-distribution which permeates the Left of today compromise the real strength of this Republic. What’s really ironic is the Left touts itself as being altruistic yet takes away the basic right of one’s own definition of or pusuit of happiness.

27 01 2009
ed42

“Further, when presented with the idea of slavery, any Anarchist worth his salt will immediately reject the concept as barbarous, for slavery has been explicitly rejected and opposed by Anarchists since its inception. ”

Perhaps it’s a matter of sematics – where is the line between forced labor and slavery? – but I think this sentence of yours is a rather shady attack on Anarchists.

If I understand correctly, Anarchists are all for “forced restitution” – the idea that the victim (with or without the help of society) is justified in extracting (retaliatory force) ‘payment’ from the criminal in order to make the victim whole. While of course the definition and nature of forced extraction and payment vary among Anarchists, I understand that some (worth their salt) allow for ‘slavery’ of the criminal until the debt is paid. For example a criminal kills my wife, some Anarchists would say I am justified in killing the criminal (while I agree some Anarchists would insist that I only get X value – my wife’s ‘worth’ – from the criminal). If I am justified in killing the criminal, am I not justified in sparing his/her life in exchange for a lifetime of slavery? On the other hand, if the criminal can’t pay X now, am I not justified in enslaving the criminal until X is satisfied (or selling the criminal to slavers in exchange for X)?

27 01 2009
Francois Tremblay

Slavery is a logical impossibility, since a human body is not of the kind of things that can be owned. Your reasoning is therefore a logical contradiction.

27 01 2009
ed42

“since a human body is not of the kind of things that can be owned.” – do ALL Anarchists accept this ‘fact’? I think not.

Again we might be arguing sematics (which indeed makes people say stupid things), but if slavery is a logical impossibility then, instead of blowing me off, use another term (or phrase) to describe the acceptable/justified interactions between a victim and criminal. Some use the term “slavery” to describe (particularly in early America context) the conditions of a human exerting force (and treat of force) against another.

27 01 2009
Francois Tremblay

“do ALL Anarchists accept this ‘fact’? I think not.”

This is no concern of mine. Anarchists are free to believe that slavery is possible, but that doesn’t make it true.

“Again we might be arguing sematics (which indeed makes people say stupid things), but if slavery is a logical impossibility then, instead of blowing me off, use another term (or phrase) to describe the acceptable/justified interactions between a victim and criminal.”

Since there are a multitude of possible justified interactions, there can’t be any word used to designate all of them, unless we design one for that purpose.

“Some use the term “slavery” to describe (particularly in early America context) the conditions of a human exerting force (and treat of force) against another”

There are also a multitude of interactions where force is exerted, so you can’t generalize about those any more than you can about justified interactions.

You are trying to talk in black and white about things that are not black and white.

4 02 2009
Royce Christian

Sceptic1,

First let me apologise for this late reply, that is even if you are still around and watching this discussion, but I’ve had issues to deal with from the heat wave to recent unemployment.

Rather than me excusing myself, allow me to jump straight into it.

“Their – poss. pronominal adj. :o f, belonging to, or done by them.

When you use the word ‘their’ in this sentence, does it not denote ownership? ”

Indeed it does denote ownership, but so it would it if I was to use the phrase, “Their wife” but that does not mean that they own their wife as property. You cannot blame me for the inflexibility of a language.

“One would also assume that you would make a distinction between an adult child and a juvenile and their social and legal relationship to the parents.”

And I do, but considering this is a blog and not a seminal treatise on every aspect of childhood and the child’s respective relationship with the parent as it progresses, I avoided going into excess detail and instead made reference to the parents roles as, “serve as both a ward and to provide for their offspring an easy transition into autonomous life.” The first being most appropriate during the child’s infancy and later juvenile years, with its importance diminishing as the child grows older, giving way to the latter. Still, there is no basis to consider the child property and hence make that child subject to the same rights we would grant a thing owned by a person. That child, though a partially clean slate, is still a flesh and blood person and not a thing. As Roderick Long wrote as the definition of libertarianism, which applies equally to Anarchism, “other people are not your property.”

“I have not suggested that because children belong to certain parents they should be categorized as “inanimate objects or household pets.” Surely, you can understand that a parent- child relationship (although the child belongs to their parents) is not synonymous with that which exists between a pet owner and their pet.”

But that is the concept created by those that would have the parent/child relationship practised in terms of property. Rothbard argued for such a position and Tucker even went a step further and argued that a person should be punished for preventing a parent from throwing their child onto the fire. Property is a relationship between people and things, be they animals or inanimate objects and if we play devils advocate and follow the argument put forward by those that would argue a child is the property of its parent, it leads us to a situation where a parent/child relationship is no different from a master/pet relationship.

Of course I can understand that “owned” may simply be the language used to describe a relationship that may have nothing to do with property, but the context of my argument is one which refers to the people who do consider a child its parent’s property, so “owned” takes on the same meaning you would apply to a pet or chair.

“I doubt that you would be considered the property of another.”

But that is where this thought, logically, leads to.

“You certainly wouldn’t become the child of the person that took care of you…”

But you’d be a dependent. And if we use dependency as grounds for considering someone, who happens to be a child, property, then we can equally apply that same consideration to others areas.

“Finally, you seem to be obsessed with associating ownership with being “used and abused.” You shouldn’t be.”

And why not? Isn’t property a relationship that grants absolute authority to the owner? Does that not entail the right to use and abuse?

“I own several cats…and they live a charmed life. I feed them, shelter them, take them to the vet and even clean up their litter box. What more can you ask for?”

You wrote,

“They also depend on them for their love, affection, discipline and socialization. This is what makes humans different from barnyard animals.”

Maybe we can get them classified as a child and you can claim benefits?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: