Is it possible to live in a society without money?


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

The gap between rich and poor is growing in America. It makes me wonder if we could live in a world without money . How would a society like that function?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Money allows people like me, with no hunter-gatherer skills, no craftsman skills, and no manual skills (I can't hunt or fish; I can't grow a garden to save my life; I can't build anything; and I'm not physically awesome enough to labor at a task), to exist without being royalty or indigent. I'm able to trade my soft skills (writing and programming) for credits (called dollars in my country), which I can then give to someone else who has the products of hard skills (the frying pan I need to cook my dinner).

My skills aren't easily bartered to my inter-local group, but they are very easily bartered through a middleman to an extra-local or remote group. Without money and the system thereof, people like me would die off.


Ask Gene Roddenberry, the Federation supposedly operated without money.

A perfect Communist State can also operate without money, people work to produce goods, and receive goods to live on. Note that every member has to agree to this and actually work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A society without needs could function without money.

Consider a group of people living on an island. The island has a large quantity of fresh drinkable water, many natural structures that provide shelter, plants with leaves that fit as clothing with no modifications needed, an abundance of fruit and vegetables that grow everywhere, and a huge stock of fish in a landlocked pool (so all that is required to extract them is to scoop some out).

On this island, money would serve no purpose.

Sovereign Court

Farael the Fallen wrote:
The gap between rich and poor is growing in America. It makes me wonder if we could live in a world without money . How would a society like that function?

We lived that way for about 95% of the history of our species. Egalitarianism is, at least in my opinion, impossible once you abandon the economy of band level society.

There is an argument that adopting agriculture and all the successive ills inherent to civilization was the worst mistake in the history of the human race.

Liberty's Edge

While it's not technically a requirement for a reputation based economy, it really helps if it's a post-scarcity or functionally a post-scarcity one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Perhaps we will find out soon. With the current level of technology evolving at a rate greater than that of our species, it may soon be possible that there will not be enough jobs left for our country. We already have robot cars. Visit a Wal Mart (incidentally one of the largest economies in the world), and find a self checkout lane. That takes care of at least a percentage of non-skilled labor, as well as semi-skilled (in the case of driving/piloting). And all without science fiction level AI.

Without jobs, there is no influx of money to consumers. Consumers not spending money means an end to production. So far we are at a level where society, economics, expense, and a few other factors prevent a technological takeover, but eventually the cost is outweighed by the savings. I say this not as a paranoid ranting, but by basic laws of how Capitalism operates. Or rather the mantra of "Cheaper, faster, more". I don't condemn it, it is how we operate. So WHEN the technology replaces a certain percentage of workers, there has to be a fundamental shift in how we, as an economy, operate. Will we eliminate money, allotting each citizen a stipend of goods and services? Will we devise a new enticement to goad people to new business/scientific/whatever ventures? Will we collapse under the weight of political inertia? Will we subsidize the common (ex)worker and otherwise remain much the same? And what of other economies as ours affects them?

An interesting posit. I have no real answers. I doubt anyone does. If history teaches us anything, though, I would wager that we do nothing about it until it is already too late, and then changing as little as possible.

And all that without the magic need killing machine spontaneously creating whatever we need (re: Star Trek's replicators...)

Liberty's Edge

Self driving vehicles, service automation, and general purpose robotics endanger something like 60% to 70% of jobs last I heard the numbers on the transportation and retail sectors.


Vod Canockers wrote:

Ask Gene Roddenberry, the Federation supposedly operated without money.

A perfect Communist State can also operate without money, people work to produce goods, and receive goods to live on. Note that every member has to agree to this and actually work.

I don't think the Federation operated without money. In fact, I know it had money just because of that Ferengi bar in DS9. I think it was stated that collecting money was no longer the drive of humans?


I think the Federation itself was without money and with money, depending on the time, and location.

It was (effectively) post-scarcity, and thus (effectively) money-free, as money was worthless for all the things that we use it for today.

In certain segments or at certain times, however, there was still the requirement of compensating a worker for their work.

The Ferengi in specific were noted as a still-money-based racial culture, who interacted with the Federation in a desire to acquire their mineral resources through "fair" (for broad definitions thereof) trade and commerce, as the Ferengi people were neither post-scarcity, nor "enlightened" as the Federation.

What's more, the bar you refer to in DS9 is hardly what could be thought of as primarily Federation space. Sure, yeah, technically the Federation was "in charge" of DS9. But they orbited someone else's planet, had two other non-Federation cultures besides clashing and blending in the local station (three if you count hyper-advanced-yet-distantly-separated worm-hole entities), and had constant challenges from malevolent forces that lived, like, right over there (as opposed to most of the Federation, which held most of their territory rather easily and well in that period of time).

I'm a bit fuzzier on the earlier parts (i.e. the Original Series time), but by Next Gen and DS9, I'm pretty certain the Federation proper had no need for currency, but the people and creatures they interacted with certainly did have that need.


Maybe Federation Earth had no money, but definitely many other societies like the Ferengi had money.


A wise man can hear profit in the wind.


Farael the Fallen wrote:
Maybe Federation Earth had no money, but definitely many other societies like the Ferengi had money.

Exactly.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In "The Neutral Zone" (TNG:1x26) Picard remarks to a human from the late 20th century that money was obsolete in the 24th century. Since this is after "The Last Outpost (TNG:1x05) presumably he's only talking about the UFP. The Klingon Empire and Cardassian Union have currency in common use, but the Romulan Star Empire didn't have any currency mentioned or much of its economy discussed.

Capitalism ceased to be a thing on Earth before the 22nd century and while the later UFP maintained a currency in the form of credits this seems to be mostly used for external trade although it did seem to have some role in allocating luxuries. Whether or not the same is true in the case of the Klingons and Cardassians is never brought up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Farael the Fallen wrote:
Maybe Federation Earth had no money, but definitely many other societies like the Ferengi had money.

And they were quite obviously included as a contrast to the Utopian vision of the series. I actually think of Utopian idealism as the hallmark of the entire setting -- I was a little disappointed to see where things have gone since.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This thread is digressing a bit.

To feed the digression (The Federation's economy) -
Star Trek during the Roddenbury years was strictly attempting to show humanity in the best light, and therefore had no greed or need of money as current society does.

The writers had problems with finding alternate means to show drama, and after Gene Roddenbury passed away, the writers were more free to add "outmoded" human failings as drama motivations (as evidenced during DS9, and the last few seasons of Next Gen).

To bring this back to current economics - we could, yet money is a great control mechanism. Why would those in power get rid of it? Only revolt, or an abundant need to alter the control mechanism would change this.

Technology advances will one day force people to rethink the control paradigm - say when cheap fusion is available and everyone could make mini-nukes in their backyard, how much worse could it be if we had teleporters and FTL drives?
option one - humanity behaves as Roddenbury predicts and improves itself. Less likely, yet has the best chance of survival.

Option two - humanity lives under the heel of a totalitarian dystopia. Very likely, yet just delays extinction.

Option three - extinction - Either humanity, or the tools of humanity destroys our existence.

Liberty's Edge

Option four - evolution; humanity ceases to be recognizable to us as humanity, just like Pan paniscus wouldn't recognize us as chimps.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Farael the Fallen wrote:
Maybe Federation Earth had no money, but definitely many other societies like the Ferengi had money.
And they were quite obviously included as a contrast to the Utopian vision of the series. I actually think of Utopian idealism as the hallmark of the entire setting -- I was a little disappointed to see where things have gone since.

I understand, but unfortunately, I am not a utopian.


Money allows for discretionary purchasing - having things we want rather than what we need.

It may be the root of all evil, but without it we'd all be pretty bored, I'd bet.


Star Trek gets mentioned a lot, but even the Federation DID have a currency, sort of. They traded in favors and information instead of coins.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Farael the Fallen wrote:
The gap between rich and poor is growing in America. It makes me wonder if we could live in a world without money . How would a society like that function?

In Medieval Europe money was largely unknown to the common person, while it existed, the main wealth of the society was land, and the main means of exchange were barter and obligations. The serf paid his rent with a portion of his agriculture, the knight and the artisan paid his lord with service, and the lord supported his people with food, shelter, and protection.

It was quite possible for many people to live their lives without seeing any money.

The growth of the mercantile class would change that but it would be centuries before money became as freely available as it is today.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matt Adams 259 wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:

Ask Gene Roddenberry, the Federation supposedly operated without money.

A perfect Communist State can also operate without money, people work to produce goods, and receive goods to live on. Note that every member has to agree to this and actually work.

I don't think the Federation operated without money. In fact, I know it had money just because of that Ferengi bar in DS9. I think it was stated that collecting money was no longer the drive of humans?

TOS however did use a standard 20th century economy. In fact in one scene Spock calculated the cost of his and Kirk's training down to the last tenth credit. The thing is while they would occasionally toss around that the Federation operated without money, there is absolutey almostNO data as to how Earth actually functioned, nor how the economies of newer members were integrated into the Federation whole.

Outside of TNG, the other future series did have their own economies. Voyager's crew would stack up "replicator credits" for things outside of necessary survival, and DS9's personnel would frequently make use of Ferengi currency.

Liberty's Edge

Not according to Roddenberry. In the case you cite, even if you don't have a capitalist market based economy with a circulating currency you still need someway to track resources and allocate resources. That's primarily what the Federation credit was used for internally: accounting.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
Not according to Roddenberry. In the case you cite, even if you don't have a capitalist market based economy with a circulating currency you still need someway to track resources and allocate resources. That's primarily what the Federation credit was used for internally: accounting.

As Harlan Ellison as noted, Roddenberry was infamous for giving different answers to the same question, depending on whom he was talking to. Also keep in mind that the majority of what makes up the Trek universe came from heads other than Roddenberry's, which is a fortunate thing.

My answers are based solely on the content of broadcast show episodes. If Roddenberry's answers conflicted with them, then you have to take it as "this is what I say, not what I do" sort of scenario.

Also remember that by the time Trek actually started giving any depth to Federation societies, Roddenberry himself had already been shot into space in the form of his cremation ashes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are several signs, throughout the shows, that the Federation operated primarily as a barter economy with secondary currency systems tacked on.

The issue of the Federation having no currency doesn't even add up within the shows: Credits, replicator chips, and latinum are all forms of currency seen in use. One thing that people tend to forget is that currency being divorced from both the value of a certain commodity is a very recent thing in human history.

People, in economic discussions of both real life and games, often bring up that a currency must not have an actual use value outside of being currency while ignoring that human civilization operated with currency having a use value outside of currency for most of its history. Salt and gold are two prime examples of this happening.

So, I do not believe the topic question is necessarily what should be discussed. I don't think it is a case of a society being possible, as a tiny scale society can exist that way, but if civilization can exist without currency. I'm not certain it could.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KestrelZ wrote:

Technology advances will one day force people to rethink the control paradigm - say when cheap fusion is available and everyone could make mini-nukes in their backyard, how much worse could it be if we had teleporters and FTL drives?

.

James Lovelock, the author of the Gaian Hypothesis once said that one of his personal nightmares would be the invention of a totally safe atomic reactor that would be about the size of your fist in our present day society. He feels that the first thing such power sources would be used for would be to create chainsaws that could cut down an entire forest in a day.

One thing that's very important to understand is that economics is still a working force even when currency does not exist. It is literally the lifeblood of any society above the most primitive hunter gatherer stage.

The Federation may not have currency, it most certainly MUST have economics to deal with. Outside of cheap atomic transmutaiton which does not seem to exist, resource allocation and scarcity are still issues to be dealt with.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It also depends how you want to define money or currency.

The fictional Whuffie (a reputation score) is a currency, but it is not money in a way people generally use the term.

Even post-scarcity economics aren't literally without scarcity. There's only so many seats in Madison Square Garden. There are only so many 1965 Mustangs. There are so many bottles of Chateau Rothschild 1990. So how does a society determine who gets access to these things? Now, for the car and wine the answer is simple for most folks, you go to the replicator and make one. The car drives as well (quite possibly better) and in all likelihood even the most skilled and discerning of wine snob nerds couldn't tell the difference. For some people no copy, no mater how perfect, will do. Similarly watching a basketball game on holovision or sensory immersion or whatever will not be the equal of being in floor seats. It doesn't matter if there's no difference in experience at all, just like some people spend big bucks on a brand name item when the store brand is the exact same thing co-packaged.

So the question is how do you prioritise time or things that by their very nature are scarce and will continue to be so despite god-like technology.

A common solution for writers (both academic and fictional) is a reputation based economy.

Another possible solution is a gift based economy. In the modern world maybe the best example is Burning Man each year, but it's not the proof of concept some hold it out to be because it has MASSIVE economic inputs that are not really balanced out in accounting terms.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That's easy. Currency is that medium which is given in exchange in lieu of goods or services on the understanding that medium will be tradable for goods and services from other agents who accept that medium.

I'm paid in dollars which will be used to pay rent, buy food, and services such as utilities. These agents in turn will use that currency for their needs.

As to how it operates in the context of high tech, I think A C Clarke took a stab at it in 3001: A Space Odyssey.


LazarX wrote:
That's easy. Currency is that medium which is given in exchange in lieu of goods or services on the understanding that medium will be tradable for goods and services from other agents who accept that medium.

Account for theft or extortion, and this definition becomes a cruel joke (but still accurate).


Friend of the family lived using the "barter economy" for nearly a decade. He and his family gave it up circa 2009 after scraping by through the economic downturn. He got tired of fixing used stuff and he always needed a certain amount of money anyway. To pay taxes if nothing else. But he was able to barter medical care even. Said he worked all the time, no vacations, and rarely a day off. Mostly it sucked apparently.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:

That's easy. Currency is that medium which is given in exchange in lieu of goods or services on the understanding that medium will be tradable for goods and services from other agents who accept that medium.

I'm paid in dollars which will be used to pay rent, buy food, and services such as utilities. These agents in turn will use that currency for their needs.

As to how it operates in the context of high tech, I think A C Clarke took a stab at it in 3001: A Space Odyssey.

Then by your definition most reputation based economies do not have currency, and in fact most post-scarcity economies would not.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
LazarX wrote:

That's easy. Currency is that medium which is given in exchange in lieu of goods or services on the understanding that medium will be tradable for goods and services from other agents who accept that medium.

I'm paid in dollars which will be used to pay rent, buy food, and services such as utilities. These agents in turn will use that currency for their needs.

As to how it operates in the context of high tech, I think A C Clarke took a stab at it in 3001: A Space Odyssey.

Then by your definition most reputation based economies do not have currency, and in fact most post-scarcity economies would not.

Absolutely not. Currency backed by the standing of the issuing nation is a medium of exchange just as much as metal rarity based currency. There is nothing in my definition that limits type of currency. However one ton boulders present their own problems, especially when it comes to making change.

I don't know of any examples of a true post-scarcity economy in modern history.


LazarX wrote:
Krensky wrote:
LazarX wrote:

That's easy. Currency is that medium which is given in exchange in lieu of goods or services on the understanding that medium will be tradable for goods and services from other agents who accept that medium.

I'm paid in dollars which will be used to pay rent, buy food, and services such as utilities. These agents in turn will use that currency for their needs.

As to how it operates in the context of high tech, I think A C Clarke took a stab at it in 3001: A Space Odyssey.

Then by your definition most reputation based economies do not have currency, and in fact most post-scarcity economies would not.
Absolutely not. Currency backed by the standing of the issuing nation is a medium of exchange just as much as metal rarity based currency. There is nothing in my definition that limits type of currency. However one ton boulders present their own problems, especially when it comes to making change.

Neither of which are reputation based economies (Not fiat money, but personal reputation), or operating in post-scarcity societies.


I'd say that reputation is a mental/social rarity. There is only so much personal reputation one can actually have. And further, there are only so many people that can have exceedingly large reputations before it all begins to fade out in the wash of names.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Krensky wrote:
LazarX wrote:

That's easy. Currency is that medium which is given in exchange in lieu of goods or services on the understanding that medium will be tradable for goods and services from other agents who accept that medium.

I'm paid in dollars which will be used to pay rent, buy food, and services such as utilities. These agents in turn will use that currency for their needs.

As to how it operates in the context of high tech, I think A C Clarke took a stab at it in 3001: A Space Odyssey.

Then by your definition most reputation based economies do not have currency, and in fact most post-scarcity economies would not.
Absolutely not. Currency backed by the standing of the issuing nation is a medium of exchange just as much as metal rarity based currency. There is nothing in my definition that limits type of currency. However one ton boulders present their own problems, especially when it comes to making change.
Neither of which are reputation based economies (Not fiat money, but personal reputation), or operating in post-scarcity societies.

Again, I don't know of any such example of an economy based that way in history, only in the Swordbearer RPG game. Medieval economies were based on land ownership, the vassalage of such, and the obligations that resulted from the vassalage of land. The king gave you and your family land and you were obligated in return. And under you supported a fighting army, and artisans who in return paid with their service.


Tacticslion wrote:
I'd say that reputation is a mental/social rarity. There is only so much personal reputation one can actually have. And further, there are only so many people that can have exceedingly large reputations before it all begins to fade out in the wash of names.

And the fact that reputations are larger than they are worth as a matter of course.

You see this all the time with politicians and their "approval" ratings. Great reputations are great until you need to 'cash' them in.


What was the use value of gold before electricity?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What was the use value of gold before electricity?

It's rarity obviously. As far as it's use value, it was highly prized as a medium for sculpture because of it's looks and it's extreme flexibility. The fact that you could make metal artforms that were impervious to things like rust and decay, that and of course it's aesthetic qualities are quite unique to this metal.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
What was the use value of gold before electricity?

What LazarX said. It was also used as a construction material by at least one culture, specifically in the design of specialized ornaments to top architecture. I've heard there's a few other historical architectural uses for it, but never investigated.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
What was the use value of gold before electricity?

About 50 gp/pound last I checked.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MagusJanus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What was the use value of gold before electricity?
What LazarX said. It was also used as a construction material by at least one culture, specifically in the design of specialized ornaments to top architecture. I've heard there's a few other historical architectural uses for it, but never investigated.

What's unique about gold is that you can spread it thinly to get that gilded effect. Of course the problem with using it to top architecture is that you will have people trying to steal it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What was the use value of gold before electricity?

Aesthetics.

Soft, workable, bright metal, ideal for creating jewelry.

This in an era where worn personal displays of wealth were considerably more important than they are today. (Maybe? i don't know about that)

But seriously, the answer is "Shiney!" and you can make delicate things out of it relatively easily.

Liberty's Edge

Nancy Kress explores this topic, albeit obliquely, in the Sleepless novels. Beggars in Spain, in particular.


LazarX wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What was the use value of gold before electricity?
What LazarX said. It was also used as a construction material by at least one culture, specifically in the design of specialized ornaments to top architecture. I've heard there's a few other historical architectural uses for it, but never investigated.
What's unique about gold is that you can spread it thinly to get that gilded effect. Of course the problem with using it to top architecture is that you will have people trying to steal it.

Something which the Egyptians found out the hard way...

The Exchange

Farael the Fallen wrote:
Maybe Federation Earth had no money, but definitely many other societies like the Ferengi had money.

May not of had money, but decision making and resource deployment was very uneven.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MagusJanus wrote:
LazarX wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What was the use value of gold before electricity?
What LazarX said. It was also used as a construction material by at least one culture, specifically in the design of specialized ornaments to top architecture. I've heard there's a few other historical architectural uses for it, but never investigated.
What's unique about gold is that you can spread it thinly to get that gilded effect. Of course the problem with using it to top architecture is that you will have people trying to steal it.
Something which the Egyptians found out the hard way...

The marble which originally covered the Great Pyramids of Egypt was eventually stripped out and used for the streets of ancient Cairo. (Egypt is one of those civilizations that is so old that it has periods that were ancient to periods we consider ancient.) Some of that limestone is still present on one of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Money (in the form of coins or currency) is a transitional means of exchange. Prior to its invention, people bartered items that had no standard value. Exchanges could get complicated when person A wanted something that person B had, but person B wanted nothing from person A -- but he did want something from person C, who in turn did want something from person A. Money enabled these people to break down the barter exchanges into separate purchases.

At the other end, it is easy to envision a near future economy in which money is recorded in computers but not physically carried around -- even today some of us are close to that point. The most rational way that the UFP economy on Star Trek might work would be for all internal transactions to be recorded automatically, and for general living the amounts involved would be too small relative to average personal wealth for most people to care about keeping track of the numbers.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except that in a post scarcity economy like star trek unintentionaly hints at money is rediculous for anything smaller than, I don't know, line items in a budget.

When supply is essentially infinite the price curve breaks and charging for things becomes rediculous.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:

Except that in a post scarcity economy like star trek unintentionaly hints at money is rediculous for anything smaller than, I don't know, line items in a budget.

When supply is essentially infinite the price curve breaks and charging for things becomes rediculous.

Star Trek is not a post scarcity economy. The Federation and all other societies still have major dependencies on resources that can't be duplicated by shoving dirt into a replicator.

There seems to be this strange belief among Trekkies that the authors of Star Trek have actually proposed a working economy instead of making empty statements with no actual basis behind them.


LazarX wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Except that in a post scarcity economy like star trek unintentionaly hints at money is rediculous for anything smaller than, I don't know, line items in a budget.

When supply is essentially infinite the price curve breaks and charging for things becomes rediculous.

Star Trek is not a post scarcity economy. The Federation and all other societies still have major dependencies on resources that can't be duplicated by shoving dirt into a replicator.

There seems to be this strange belief among Trekkies that the authors of Star Trek have actually proposed a working economy instead of making empty statements with no actual basis behind them.

I think the idea is that citizens in everyday life have no need for pocket money. Beyond that the economy of the federation is rather vague.

Interesting points to conciser include:

Do you have to pay to eat at Joe Sisko's restaurant on Earth?
How does Joe Sisko lay claim to the land/building of his restaurant.
Can a private citizen of the federation acquire a ship without trading outside the federation? If so, how?
How does Ben Sisko acquire his collection of African art?
On Farpoint, Beverly Crusher "charges" a bolt of fabric to her Enterprise account. What the hell is that?

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Is it possible to live in a society without money? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.