Much has been made of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau's promise to legalize marijuana. The exact specifics of his plan have not been laid out. Politicians are always reluctant to spell out in great detail what they propose since vague statements can be interpreted by the audience to mean whatever they want to them to mean but exact details can provoke opposition. While advocates of legalization have often brought up the refrain of 'legalize, tax and regulate' there is an alternative approach, which is simply to legalize. After all, why is it our purpose to increase state revenues? These revenues will after all be spent on new counterproductive schemes to control the economy and loot us of our hard earned wealth. And why should we subject the blossoming marijuana industry to regulations which, through the imposition of high fixed costs, will cripple the ability of smaller firms to compete with established business interests? What about the alternative - to eliminate the criminal penalties for production, distribution and cultivation but leave the newly created legal market in pot unregulated and untaxed. Why not have a free market in ganja?
To be certain, marijuana should be legalized. In fact, the Canadian government should declare unconditional surrender in the war on drugs. All drugs should be legal. After all, if an individual owns their body, shouldn't they have the right to put in it whatever they please? And even though drugs may be harmful, hasn't more harm been caused by this war? What of the damage to our rights against unlawful search and seizure? What about all of the crimes against person and property which have gone unsolved because scarce police resources were squandered in this vain effort to keep addicts from using and dealers from selling? And what about all of the drug dealers languishing in prison and all the prison guards needlessly employed keeping them there? If there were no war on drugs then their entrepreneurial talents would be redirected towards some other satisfaction of consumer demand. While it is common to demonize these men and women who have dared to defy state edicts, the reality is that drug dealing is a victimless crime. These people aren't evil; they are simply out to make a buck. And why not? If anything they are heroic for risking their lives and freedom to bring consumers want they want.
Even in the event that Trudeau is elected and he keeps his promise and legalizes pot, no doubt what would see in the legal marijuana market is what we see in other markets and in the present legal medical marijuana industry. Regulations that protect a few established firms from competition. A highly regulated, highly taxed, uncompetitive market for the benefit of a tiny elite. Thanks but no thanks; better the money go to some kid who is slanging than the crony of a politician.
So absolutely, let's legalize, but instead of of taxing and regulating, why not try freedom?
Saturday, August 29, 2015
the inexorable growth of the state
There are different ways to define the government. Oppenheimer defined the state as the organization of the political means. There are two ways to obtain wealth. The first method is to produce or trade for it; this is the economy means. The second method is to avoid the work of production and simply to take what another has created. This is the political means. Weber defined the state as a territorial monopolist of violence. But another key distinction of government is it's monopoly on arbitrage and decision making.
The problem with the limited government view is that once an organization has been granted a monopoly on arbitrage there is simply no method of checking the inexorable growth of it's power. People love power and will usually decide to aggrandize their own or that of an organization which they are a part of. Which is not to say, for those who oppose the state and it's perpetual violence, that there is no hope. Ideology can trump self interest and we should never neglect the role that ideas play in shaping history. But it is also important to examine whether the particular means of those who are opposed to an ever expanding state are suitable for their ends of limiting government.
The solution, then, is to allow for free competition in arbitrage and judicial decisions. Instead of promoting a state monopoly in justice allow for a market in legal decisions. One common objection to this idea is that it will make justice be for sale to the highest bidder. But there is little demand for a judge who can be bought; his decisions will not hold much weight with other parties. The most widely sought after jurists would be those who are the fairest. And while the present legal system is costly, inefficient and painfully slow, there would be incentives in a legal market to provide cost effective and quick solutions. The cost of participating in the state's legal system can be so expensive that vexatious litigants can use the threat thereof against wealthy organizations as a means to a quick payday. And it is not as if judges today are entirely above bribery anyway.
The question of exactly what a form a market in justice might take is an interesting academic exercise but not necessarily one which can be answered. No doubt what would develop over time would be combination of theory and practice as practices which worked were adopted and those which didn't were discarded, much like the tradition of common law itself. As for verdicts being enforced without the state, certain courts may demand assets might be held in escrow for the participation of parties and David Friedman points out the emphasis of the discipline of repeat dealings. An organization which routinely thumbed their nose at legal rulings would suffer a loss of reputation and would lose their ability to settle disputes legally as other organizations would refuse to go to court with them.
The inefficiencies of areas of the economy monopolized by the state have been observed and decried for centuries now. Isn't it time we let market competition work in one of the most vital areas of human endeavours?
The problem with the limited government view is that once an organization has been granted a monopoly on arbitrage there is simply no method of checking the inexorable growth of it's power. People love power and will usually decide to aggrandize their own or that of an organization which they are a part of. Which is not to say, for those who oppose the state and it's perpetual violence, that there is no hope. Ideology can trump self interest and we should never neglect the role that ideas play in shaping history. But it is also important to examine whether the particular means of those who are opposed to an ever expanding state are suitable for their ends of limiting government.
The solution, then, is to allow for free competition in arbitrage and judicial decisions. Instead of promoting a state monopoly in justice allow for a market in legal decisions. One common objection to this idea is that it will make justice be for sale to the highest bidder. But there is little demand for a judge who can be bought; his decisions will not hold much weight with other parties. The most widely sought after jurists would be those who are the fairest. And while the present legal system is costly, inefficient and painfully slow, there would be incentives in a legal market to provide cost effective and quick solutions. The cost of participating in the state's legal system can be so expensive that vexatious litigants can use the threat thereof against wealthy organizations as a means to a quick payday. And it is not as if judges today are entirely above bribery anyway.
The question of exactly what a form a market in justice might take is an interesting academic exercise but not necessarily one which can be answered. No doubt what would develop over time would be combination of theory and practice as practices which worked were adopted and those which didn't were discarded, much like the tradition of common law itself. As for verdicts being enforced without the state, certain courts may demand assets might be held in escrow for the participation of parties and David Friedman points out the emphasis of the discipline of repeat dealings. An organization which routinely thumbed their nose at legal rulings would suffer a loss of reputation and would lose their ability to settle disputes legally as other organizations would refuse to go to court with them.
The inefficiencies of areas of the economy monopolized by the state have been observed and decried for centuries now. Isn't it time we let market competition work in one of the most vital areas of human endeavours?
the cleansing of pro palestinian sentiment in the NDP
There is not much to recommend the New Democratic Party. On economic policy they are dismal. When it comes to advancing the anti-human, anti-prosperity environmentalist agenda, they are second to none. Their agenda of tax hikes and spending increases demonstrates a level of stupidity which Canada's other major political parties has never quite managed to meet. Even on foreign policy they are far too protectionist and to needlessly eager to involve Canadian soldiers in peace keeping missions. But at least, AT LEAST!, on the issue of Palestine they had some sense. Alas, under the leadership of Mulcair, this last vestige of opposition to the war party's agenda in the middle east has been swept away.
From Clyde River, to Halifax, from Edmonton to Calgary, the party leadership is cleansing it's slate of any who dared to speak against the Israeli conquest and occupation of Palestine. This slap in the face to party loyalists is a clear signal that Mulcair as Prime Minister would pose no threat to the military industrial complex or the policy of western imperialism. It's not surprising that the opportunist Mulcair, leading in the polls would and no doubt salivating at the prospect of becoming the next Canadian head of state, would join Trudeau and Harper in kowtowing to Israel; politicians will do or say anything if they think it will help them gain power.
Libertarians in Canada have long since recognized that the differences between establishment political parties are very superficial. Perhaps it's appropriate that the NDP join the ranks of Canadian Israeli apologists. There is a broad social democratic consensus on the part of all "right thinking indivduals" on the importance of social spending, dirigism, environmentalism and the silencing of free speech in the name of human rights. Why not extend this hegemonic viewpoint to imperialism and support for Israel? For that matter, why even bother having different political parties at all, if they are all going to advocate for the same policies and ideas? Why not just merge the NDP, Liberals, Greens and Conservatives into one grand party of social democracy? At least that would be more honest than vigorously promoting the same ideas under different rhetoric to create the illusion of choice.
Friday, August 28, 2015
borrow to build roads?
The latest media buzz surrounding the federal election is Trudeau's pledge to run deficits to finance infrastructure spending, echoing the Wynne plan in Ontario. Those in favour of "road socialism" (which is to say, everybody) really have no answer to this proposal except to echo it enthusiastically. After all once you accept that only the state can or should build bridges, highways etc. then how can you dispute that we need more of them? But do we? How exactly does one determine how much infrastructure should be created and where?
The etatist answer is to relegate this task to some central planning committee or bureaucrat, who will then diligently assess the situation and come up with some answer on the basis of traffic flows, political needs or whatever. The answer of the anarcho-capitalist is that you should privatize infrastructure and then the price system will reflect consumer demand and direct scarce resources to their most efficacious ends. All goods are in competition with other goods for the requisite capital, labour and land which is required for their production. More roads becomes less cars of factories or less whatever other good.
The 20th century witnessed the repudiation of the collectivist central planning ideology. The soviet union was perhaps the ultimate embodiment of this belief system and it collapsed because ultimately socialism does not work. But just as the market economy is more suitable for the production of housing, automobiles and food, so it is the best means of providing roads, medicine and security. Indeed, the more vital the industry the more important it is that it be privatized. Let the state have a monopoly on the sale of alcohol, for example, but let education and health care be supplied by a market.
Given the present paradigm it could very well be that the federal government should spend more money on infrastructure. The libertarian position on this issue is to be agnostic. Without a legitimate price structure it's unanswerable. The best guess of a bureaucrat is a poor substitute for the catallactic expression of consumer demand which would occur in a market. The libertarian position on infrastructure spending is simply to privatize the roads and highways. The advantages would be legion. Higher prices charged during peak times would work to ease the gridlock which plagues major urban areas and competition between road companies would serve to promote innovation in road safety. Infrastructure firms would have an incentive to monitor their roads and ban drunk or careless drivers since safer roads would be a strong advertising point. If a company were as blasé about potholes as municipal governments are they would quickly find consumers choosing to drive on more manicured pavements.
But on the question of whether or not deficits brought upon by an increase in government spending are good for the long term health of the economy there can be no question they are not. Public sector spending and the taxes it entails hamper economic growth. If the deficit is financed through bond sales to the banking system then it is inflationary as well, and this has it's own pernicious effect on the wealth of the nation. During both boom and bust the best approach for the health of the economy is to reduce spending and cut taxes to allow the private sector room to grow.
The etatist answer is to relegate this task to some central planning committee or bureaucrat, who will then diligently assess the situation and come up with some answer on the basis of traffic flows, political needs or whatever. The answer of the anarcho-capitalist is that you should privatize infrastructure and then the price system will reflect consumer demand and direct scarce resources to their most efficacious ends. All goods are in competition with other goods for the requisite capital, labour and land which is required for their production. More roads becomes less cars of factories or less whatever other good.
The 20th century witnessed the repudiation of the collectivist central planning ideology. The soviet union was perhaps the ultimate embodiment of this belief system and it collapsed because ultimately socialism does not work. But just as the market economy is more suitable for the production of housing, automobiles and food, so it is the best means of providing roads, medicine and security. Indeed, the more vital the industry the more important it is that it be privatized. Let the state have a monopoly on the sale of alcohol, for example, but let education and health care be supplied by a market.
Given the present paradigm it could very well be that the federal government should spend more money on infrastructure. The libertarian position on this issue is to be agnostic. Without a legitimate price structure it's unanswerable. The best guess of a bureaucrat is a poor substitute for the catallactic expression of consumer demand which would occur in a market. The libertarian position on infrastructure spending is simply to privatize the roads and highways. The advantages would be legion. Higher prices charged during peak times would work to ease the gridlock which plagues major urban areas and competition between road companies would serve to promote innovation in road safety. Infrastructure firms would have an incentive to monitor their roads and ban drunk or careless drivers since safer roads would be a strong advertising point. If a company were as blasé about potholes as municipal governments are they would quickly find consumers choosing to drive on more manicured pavements.
But on the question of whether or not deficits brought upon by an increase in government spending are good for the long term health of the economy there can be no question they are not. Public sector spending and the taxes it entails hamper economic growth. If the deficit is financed through bond sales to the banking system then it is inflationary as well, and this has it's own pernicious effect on the wealth of the nation. During both boom and bust the best approach for the health of the economy is to reduce spending and cut taxes to allow the private sector room to grow.
Anarcho capitalism is impossible?
Anarcho capitalism is impossible?
The anarcho-capitalist viewpoint it simple. Aggression is wrong. Theft is wrong. Property rights exist and the state should not. While the development of this philosophy was thousands of years in the making and traced a tortured route through early Chinese and Greek philosophers, past the early Christian church, onto the liberal reaction against Absolutism in Europe in the 17th and 18th century and finally culminating in the social views of the Austrian school in North America it's basic axioms are elegant in their simplicity.
The anarcho-syndicalist viewpoint is equally simple but mired in contradictions. Capitalism is evil. Property is theft. The state should not exist. But if there is no state then who is to oversee the common store of goods? Who is to determine if one is shirking or doing one's fair share? Necessarily a workers council must control the commonly owned property; behold the state. If property is theft, what then about personal possessions? Can I not own a toothbrush of my own? Clothing of my own? Behold, private property.
Syndicalism also suffers from a calculation deficit. Without a price system derived from economic calculation, how is it determined how much iron or buttons or widgets are produced? While the solution of state communism to this problem is woefully inadequate, they at least attempt such a solution. Sowell estimates the Soviet Union had 34 million different prices to be set. How can a syndicalist society determine what should be produced without these prices? The price system effortlessly coordinates the activities of people across the globe to produce that which is most urgently desired by consumers. Without it, how are you to prevent or correct a glut in good A or a shortage in good B?
The question of national defense in a society without a state is an important one. How precisely would the threat of foreign invasion be handled? Perhaps an army would be organized in peacetime on the basis of a charity, with broad reservist ranks and voluntary donations for funding. Perhaps nuclear weaponry would be obtained and used to threaten bellicose neighbours (although given that A's aggression against B does not justify B's aggression against C it is difficult to reconcile a libertarian ideology with the use of a nuke). Perhaps diplomacy and luck (friendly neighbours) would do the trick, as in the case of say a North American or European anarcho-capitalist nation. Ultimately we can offer only conjecture as to how the demand for national security would work. But an anarcho-capitalist nation would have certain advantages when it came to national defense. A policy of open borders would attract immigrants and a larger population base will allow for a larger army. Laissez-faire has proven historically to lead to rapid capital accumulation and a strong industrial base can be converted into the production of armaments. Free market capitalism contributes to the rapid development of new technology and so, certeris paribus, a libertarian society would be a more advanced society, and this will translate into a more advanced military. One thing can be certain, the rapidly disintegrating economic structure of a anarcho-socialist state would leave such a nation in very poor shape to handle foreign conquerors.
People would still be able to get obscenely rich without a state; the main difference would be that fortunes could only be made by providing consumers with what they most urgently desire. The state is systematic plunder; the market is peaceful social cooperation. While government is justified on the basis of security and protecting private property in reality it is simply a criminal conspiracy on the part of the political class to loot the economic class. Far from protecting private property the state constantly aggresses against it. It would be far easier for the greatest entrepreneurs to accumulate wealth if they did not have to submit constantly to state plunder and jump through bureaucratic hoops. But laissez-faire means prosperity not only for the elite but also for everyone else. Historically societies which have most closely approximated laissez-faire have also seen standards of living rise very quickly for everyone, including the poorest of the poor. Without the state to seize and redistribute a significant portion of the national product there would be a far greater investment in capital. Without the government's mangling of the money supply it would be far easier for people to save, meaning a greater supply of loanable funds for enterprise to borrow and grow. A sound monetary system would mean an end to the boom-bust business cycle and the constant dislocation brought about by artificial interest rates. Without a bellicose foreign policy there would be more resources for domestic production. Without the regulatory regime free enterprise would more easily flourish. Everything the state does retards innovation, suppresses economic growth and leads to poverty. How can one imagine that the cost of private policing could be anything comparable to the taxes demanded by the modern omnipotent state?
The state, the organization of the political means, is a monster. The state is violence. But abolishing this institution of evil and replacing it with socialism would be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. There have been countless experiments in the 'common store' of goods, all of them ending in abject failure, misery, poverty and tyranny. History is replete with the graves of those who have been victimized by this idea. The state is evil; capitalism is great.
The anarcho-capitalist viewpoint it simple. Aggression is wrong. Theft is wrong. Property rights exist and the state should not. While the development of this philosophy was thousands of years in the making and traced a tortured route through early Chinese and Greek philosophers, past the early Christian church, onto the liberal reaction against Absolutism in Europe in the 17th and 18th century and finally culminating in the social views of the Austrian school in North America it's basic axioms are elegant in their simplicity.
The anarcho-syndicalist viewpoint is equally simple but mired in contradictions. Capitalism is evil. Property is theft. The state should not exist. But if there is no state then who is to oversee the common store of goods? Who is to determine if one is shirking or doing one's fair share? Necessarily a workers council must control the commonly owned property; behold the state. If property is theft, what then about personal possessions? Can I not own a toothbrush of my own? Clothing of my own? Behold, private property.
Syndicalism also suffers from a calculation deficit. Without a price system derived from economic calculation, how is it determined how much iron or buttons or widgets are produced? While the solution of state communism to this problem is woefully inadequate, they at least attempt such a solution. Sowell estimates the Soviet Union had 34 million different prices to be set. How can a syndicalist society determine what should be produced without these prices? The price system effortlessly coordinates the activities of people across the globe to produce that which is most urgently desired by consumers. Without it, how are you to prevent or correct a glut in good A or a shortage in good B?
The question of national defense in a society without a state is an important one. How precisely would the threat of foreign invasion be handled? Perhaps an army would be organized in peacetime on the basis of a charity, with broad reservist ranks and voluntary donations for funding. Perhaps nuclear weaponry would be obtained and used to threaten bellicose neighbours (although given that A's aggression against B does not justify B's aggression against C it is difficult to reconcile a libertarian ideology with the use of a nuke). Perhaps diplomacy and luck (friendly neighbours) would do the trick, as in the case of say a North American or European anarcho-capitalist nation. Ultimately we can offer only conjecture as to how the demand for national security would work. But an anarcho-capitalist nation would have certain advantages when it came to national defense. A policy of open borders would attract immigrants and a larger population base will allow for a larger army. Laissez-faire has proven historically to lead to rapid capital accumulation and a strong industrial base can be converted into the production of armaments. Free market capitalism contributes to the rapid development of new technology and so, certeris paribus, a libertarian society would be a more advanced society, and this will translate into a more advanced military. One thing can be certain, the rapidly disintegrating economic structure of a anarcho-socialist state would leave such a nation in very poor shape to handle foreign conquerors.
People would still be able to get obscenely rich without a state; the main difference would be that fortunes could only be made by providing consumers with what they most urgently desire. The state is systematic plunder; the market is peaceful social cooperation. While government is justified on the basis of security and protecting private property in reality it is simply a criminal conspiracy on the part of the political class to loot the economic class. Far from protecting private property the state constantly aggresses against it. It would be far easier for the greatest entrepreneurs to accumulate wealth if they did not have to submit constantly to state plunder and jump through bureaucratic hoops. But laissez-faire means prosperity not only for the elite but also for everyone else. Historically societies which have most closely approximated laissez-faire have also seen standards of living rise very quickly for everyone, including the poorest of the poor. Without the state to seize and redistribute a significant portion of the national product there would be a far greater investment in capital. Without the government's mangling of the money supply it would be far easier for people to save, meaning a greater supply of loanable funds for enterprise to borrow and grow. A sound monetary system would mean an end to the boom-bust business cycle and the constant dislocation brought about by artificial interest rates. Without a bellicose foreign policy there would be more resources for domestic production. Without the regulatory regime free enterprise would more easily flourish. Everything the state does retards innovation, suppresses economic growth and leads to poverty. How can one imagine that the cost of private policing could be anything comparable to the taxes demanded by the modern omnipotent state?
The state, the organization of the political means, is a monster. The state is violence. But abolishing this institution of evil and replacing it with socialism would be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. There have been countless experiments in the 'common store' of goods, all of them ending in abject failure, misery, poverty and tyranny. History is replete with the graves of those who have been victimized by this idea. The state is evil; capitalism is great.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
yo notley : spending cuts the best medicine for ailing albertan economy
The Notley government has decided to delay their budget until the end of October, perhaps to save Mulcair and his merry gang of mensheviks the embarrassment of explaining away her 7 billion dollar shortfall while campaigning on the promise of eliminating the federal deficit. With the energy sector struggling under low oil prices and oil & gas being such an integral part of the economy in Alberta, how should Notley best handle this situation in her inaugural budget?
Spending Cuts
The best thing the government can do when the economy is struggling is cut taxes and cut spending. This gives the private sector, the engine for economic growth, room to recover. Where to cut? Anywhere and everywhere; the deeper and broader the cuts the better. Privatize and downsize. Cut funding to post secondary education, for seniors, cut the salaries and ranks of bureaucrats, cut the oil royalties, auction off parks and stop government advertising.
The deeper the cuts in spending and taxes the more wealth will remain in the private sector. The market economy is a positive sum game. People only trade when they expect to benefit, and in the vast majority of cases their expectations are realized. While errors can occur on the route between ex ante and ex post, these are rare, the exception not rule. There is an immediate feedback mechanism. If you make a lousy trade you recognize this and don't do it again. The state, by contrast, is win / lose. One individual or group benefits only to the extent that another suffers. Government is a negative sum game, as state expenditures are not directed towards the highest ranking ends of the people the money is spent on. Instead government spending is the consumptive decisions of bureaucrats.
An additional benefit to deep spending cuts is that the government employees who become unemployed by this course of action would have no recourse but to find more gainful employment in the private sector, switching from burden to benefactor. Coupling the spending cuts with meaningful tax relief would draw in foreign investment, always eager to find a jurisdiction free of confiscator tax rates and would enable consumers to more easily save and invest. Savings are critical for long term economic growth since firms borrow this money to purchase capital.
Unfortunately it is very unlikely that those who are ideologically committed to their dirigiste view of the state are going to find religion sometime during the next two months and Albertans will have to suffer under a status quo budget of profligate government spending and tax hikes. C'est la vie.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
a bad tax credit
One of the axioms of the libertarian credo is that there is no such thing as a bad tax credit. While some right wing politicians may talk about 'simplifying the tax code' those of us in the freedom movement understand that this is a euphemism for raising taxes. The myriad exceptions written in to the code represent successful efforts by some to alleviate their tax burden and we should celebrate this achievement whenever it occurs. There is no such thing as a bad tax credit; so leave it to Justin Trudeau and his merry gang of interventionists at Trudeau for PM headquarters to devise one.
His latest election promise is a tax credit for teachers worth up to $150 a year. The problem with this credit is that teachers are net tax recipients. They can't really be said to pay taxes; this is an accounting fiction. In reality the 'taxes' they pay are simply a reduction in their salary. So a reduction in this reduction is in reality a raise. But teachers are already paid far too much (if you're using Chrome and can't read this link open it in incognito mode). Even before counting their extremely generous benefits elementary and secondary school teachers make around $70 an hour. And what do we get for these high salaries? Not very much. Terrible teachers are protected vigorously by their union and bureaucracy and waste in public schools is endemic. The principled libertarian solution is both simple and powerful; smash the public school monopoly and the teachers union. Shut down public education, auction off the schools, use the revenue obtained in this manner to pass broad tax reform and let the free market handle education. Then a school which coddled bad teachers would find itself losing out to those which didn't. Wasteful bureaucracy would also be weeded out because schools which found ways to eliminate waste and bureaucracy would be able to charge lower prices to consumers beating out their less efficient competitors. And parents who decided to home school would no longer have to subsidize the now non existent pubic school system with their taxes; an important development considering the supremacy of one on one education.
His latest election promise is a tax credit for teachers worth up to $150 a year. The problem with this credit is that teachers are net tax recipients. They can't really be said to pay taxes; this is an accounting fiction. In reality the 'taxes' they pay are simply a reduction in their salary. So a reduction in this reduction is in reality a raise. But teachers are already paid far too much (if you're using Chrome and can't read this link open it in incognito mode). Even before counting their extremely generous benefits elementary and secondary school teachers make around $70 an hour. And what do we get for these high salaries? Not very much. Terrible teachers are protected vigorously by their union and bureaucracy and waste in public schools is endemic. The principled libertarian solution is both simple and powerful; smash the public school monopoly and the teachers union. Shut down public education, auction off the schools, use the revenue obtained in this manner to pass broad tax reform and let the free market handle education. Then a school which coddled bad teachers would find itself losing out to those which didn't. Wasteful bureaucracy would also be weeded out because schools which found ways to eliminate waste and bureaucracy would be able to charge lower prices to consumers beating out their less efficient competitors. And parents who decided to home school would no longer have to subsidize the now non existent pubic school system with their taxes; an important development considering the supremacy of one on one education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)