What Is Justice?: Crash Course Philosophy #40
- Articles, Blog

What Is Justice?: Crash Course Philosophy #40


Justice is one of those things that people talk about all the time, without really being specific about what they mean. Activists talk about economic justice. Police and lawyers talk about criminal justice. Parents, teachers, and students talk about justice a lot, too, though they may never use that word. When there’s a fight on the playground, or you get a grade you think you don’t deserve, we find ourselves talking about what’s fair. And that is talking about justice. And we think we know what it is, but we probably
don’t – or at least, we don’t agree. Is justice about equality? Fairness? Getting
what we deserve? Or getting what we need? Sometimes we talk about balancing the scales
of justice. This goes back to an ancient Greek understanding
of justice as harmony. In this view, a just society is one in which everyone fulfills their roles, so that society runs smoothly. In that case, violating your place in the social order – even if it’s a place you don’t want to hold – is considered unjust. Other times, justice has been understood in a more utilitarian way, where a just society is one that tries to increase the overall quality of life for its citizens. And for a political libertarian, a just society is simply one that allows its citizens to be maximally free. So which is it? Is justice buying a meal for someone in need? Is it sending a criminal to jail? Is it doling out rewards and punishments based
on merit? The reason people talk about justice all the time is that it’s one of the most fundamental social, ethical, and moral principles we deal with every day. And in the end, what justice means to you personally, pretty much defines how you think society should work. [Theme Music] You might have already noticed this, but when people talk about justice, a lot of the time, they’re really talking about stuff. Like, who has more stuff – whether that’s money, food, or access to services like healthcare and sanitation. Who gets to decide who gets what?
And on what basis? The area of moral philosophy that considers these questions is known as distributive justice, and there are many different schools of thought here. For example, some people believe that everyone should get the same kind and amount of stuff, no matter what. This concept is known as justice as equality. It sounds totally fair. But, is everyone getting the same stuff really
justice? Because I need – or want – different kinds
and amounts of stuff than you do. So, there’s also the idea of need-based
justice. This says everyone shouldn’t get the same,
because our needs aren’t the same. By this logic, justice is getting based on
what we need. So those who need more, get more. And some say that this makes sense, while others argue that it amounts to favoring some people over others, putting those who happen to not be in need, at a disadvantage. And if that’s how you look at things, then you probably espouse some kind of merit-based justice, which says that justice actually means giving unequally, based on what each person deserves. And you deserve stuff – or don’t – based
on what you’ve done. So this view rewards hard work and punishes
trouble-makers. Finally, there’s the very simple-sounding approach advanced by twentieth century American political philosopher John Rawls. He argued that justice is fairness. Any inequalities that exist in a social system, Rawls said, should favor the least well-off, because this levels the playing field of society. This is a form of need-based justice that focuses specifically on making sure that everyone is actually in a position to achieve their basic needs. Rawls reasoned that the world is full of natural
inequalities. Think of all the things we talked about when
we discussed moral luck; a lot of factors that will shape your life
are totally out of your control. So Rawls’ sense of justice means correcting for those disadvantages that are beyond our control. Once again, there are some who argue that justice-is-fairness is actually unfair to those who have gotten the most – either through hard work, or because they happened to win life’s natural lottery. 20th century American philosopher Robert Nozick
disagreed with Rawls’ idea that justice-is-fairness. And to demonstrate why, he posed this thought experiment, about professional basketball, which we will explore in the Thought Bubble with some Flash Philosophy. Wilt Chamberlain was a wildly popular basketball
player when Nozick created this example. So Nozick said: What if Chamberlain – probably the most famous athlete of his day – decided that he’d play only under certain conditions? Suppose that Chamberlain decides that tickets for games he plays in should cost 25 cents more than games he doesn’t play in. And what’s more, Chamberlain will be paid
$100,000 more than the other players. Now, Chamberlain is really popular, so everyone knows that more people will show up to see a game he’s playing in, even if the tickets cost more. Since he is the draw, isn’t he entitled
to ask for more money than his teammates? Nozick argued that we can’t – and shouldn’t –
try to even out the naturally uneven playing field here. Sure, we start out with unequal amounts of
stuff. But Nozick said, we’re each entitled to the stuff we have, provided we didn’t steal it or otherwise obtain it unjustly. So, if you’re the world’s most famous basketball player, you are entitled to have, and want, more stuff, even if others don’t have it. If Chamberlain’s awesomeness at basketball lets him amass a bunch of wealth, while other people go hungry, well, that’s not Wilt’s fault. Thanks, Thought Bubble! As you can see, there is a lot of disagreement
about what it means to distribute justly. And this is an incredibly important topic, because a lot of what we argue about politically has to do exactly this with issue. People who believe there are essential human rights, for example, argue that we’re simply entitled to have our most basic needs fulfilled – things like having enough to eat, and being
able to go to the doctors when we’re sick. But not everyone believes it’s the government’s job to provide us with those things, if we’re not able to get them ourselves. Those people might argue that your rights
are negative. A negative right is the right not to be interfered with, not to be stopped from pursuing the things you need. So in this view, I can’t prevent you from trying to fulfill your needs, but I don’t have to help you to fulfill them, either. By contrast, you might believe in positive
rights. If you have a positive right to something, you are entitled to help in getting it, if you can’t get it yourself. So, if you can’t afford a doctor, you have
a right to get assistance in affording one. But notice that in this view, a right implies
an obligation. Your rights – in this case, your right to see a doctor, even if you can’t afford one – might make obligatory demands on me, because I might end up helping to pay for it. Of course, someone like Nozick would ask,
where would such a right come from? How could I incur an obligation to help you,
just because I’m better off than you are? Sure, it might be nice if I helped, but it’s certainly not a duty, and no one should compel me to do it. But that’s exactly what the government does when it takes taxes from those who have more in order to assist those who have less. So you see what I mean: when people talk about taxes, and healthcare, and income inequality, they’re really talking about justice. But of course, a lot of the time, justice
isn’t at all about stuff. It’s also about punishment. Like most subjects, philosophers disagree about the most appropriate way to respond to wrongdoing. One concept is known as retributive justice. This holds that the only way for justice to be satisfied is for a wrongdoer to suffer in proportion to the way he’s made others suffer. This is your good old fashioned, Biblical,
eye-for-an-eye justice. And in this view, punishment is supposed to hurt;
that’s the only way to “make things right.” Historically, this would mean things like, if you cause physical harm to someone, your punisher must do the same thing to you. Today, though, in the interest of being civilized, we tend to mete out the pain in terms of incarceration and fines, rather than straight-up tit-for-tat. But still, just retribution is one of the driving
philosophical forces behind capital punishment; the idea that there’s simply no way to right the wrong of taking a life, other than by taking the life of the life-taker. But utilitarians have other theories of punishment. Rather than making wrongdoers suffer for suffering’s sake, these thinkers favor what’s known as welfare maximization. In this view, there’s no good to be found
in vindictively causing pain to wrongdoers. But some form of punishment is still in order. So one option is rehabilitation. Here, the approach is to give wrongdoers help, so they can learn how to get along in society and follow its rules. The focus is often on education and, if needed,
therapy. This is sometimes criticized as being paternalistic, because it carries with it the assumption that wrongdoers are in need of our help, that they don’t know any better, and that they need to be “cured” of some social disease. But another approach to just punishment is
deterrence. For eons, people have assumed that punishment prevents a wrongdoer from committing further crimes, while also discouraging others from breaking the rules. So, rather than making a wrongdoer suffer for what they’ve done, supporters of deterrence see punishment as being for the good of society as a whole. Sometimes, we punish people to send a message
to other people. One more approach to just punishment is the
concept of restorative justice. Here, you must right your wrongs. The focus is on making amends, rather than
making the wrongdoer suffer. So if you make a mess, you have to clean it
up. And if you hurt someone, you need to take
steps to try and make it right. This is the logic behind assigning community
service to offenders. The hope here is that the right approach to wrongdoing will lead to healing and growth, both for the wrongdoer and for the wronged. It’s about restoration and forgiveness – basically
the polar opposite of the retributive approach. So, take this advice: Give some thought to
your own views on these topics. Because what you see as the right answer should shape the way you vote, how you spend your money, and the way you punish your kids. You might discover that, upon reflection, you should change the way you’re doing some things. Like I said, everyone talks about justice, but before you can, you really have to decide what it means. Today we talked about various theories of
justice. We talked about just distribution, and we
also considered different approaches to punishment. Next time, we’ll talk about discrimination. Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association
with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel to check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like: Coma Niddy, Deep Look, and First Person. This episode of Crash Course was filmed in
the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.

About Ralph Robinson

Read All Posts By Ralph Robinson

100 thoughts on “What Is Justice?: Crash Course Philosophy #40

  1. Just a note that our office will be closed next week and so Crash Course will also be taking the week off. We'll be back with more Crash Course Philosophy in 2017!

  2. rich people get all the medical attention they want, a reduction of criminal "justice" against them, and never have to worry about basic human needs. poor people get to die if they have health issues, try to get arrested because it's better than the underpass, and starve because we have determined they have less value than those with money, even if they were born into wealth and never worked a day for it. no, it's not your obligation to help. but not wanting to help another individual suffering is pretty damn disgusting.

  3. Don't punish your kids, discipline them. Discipline is to teach what to do in the future, punishment is to make them suffer for not listening to you. Also, I guess if justice is making a criminal suffer as much as their victim, then in victim-less crimes, like marijuana possession, there should be no punishment.

  4. Evening out the uneven playing field is kind of stupid given hard determinism and the lack of free will.

  5. I love Crash Course, but their understanding about Biblical Christianity isn't exactly correct. Many often cite passages and events from the Bible in a negative context without really understanding how those things work in conjunction with the Bible as a whole.

  6. Once again, Great job, CrashCourse.
    Restorative Justice sounds good.
    For me, I believe that when someone does something that is harmful or a form of wrongdoing, I think you should give them the right to explain their actions. During their explanation, I believe they recognise their wrongdoing and then they should be encouraged to do better, to do good, to right the wrong, to avoid doing the wrong and to encourage others do the same. But I like some of each of the types of justice, though physical punishment doesn't quit appeal to me.
    But anyway, I have a question.
    If you take the life of Person A because they took the life of Person B doesn't that make you a lifetaker and thus aren't you subject to the same punishment?
    Thanks again CrashCourse for the wonderful videos that you share with the world.

  7. Am I the only science guy who subscribed CRASH COURSE for the science videos and now watching literally everything they upload?

  8. This was amazingly interesting!!! sooo using this with my class, ty guys!!!!! Thanks Hank. You and your team Rock!

  9. Criminal justice should always be aimed at reducing crime. Capital punishment should be easy to figure out. Look at states and countries with and without capital punishment and the rates of capital crimes in both. Is there a difference and is it enough to justify capital punishment. After all we do take a moral hit for imposing capital punishment. Social justice depends on where you're willing to draw a line. What living conditions are we going to set as a minimum for other people. Personally I don't think we can just say it's their fault and still think we have the moral high ground. Also, in our society, the wealthy make the rules which effect who makes wealth. You can't possibly expect this to result in a fair outcome.

  10. There is no such thing as absolute justice. Absolute justice in all parts of society is absolutely unobtainable, where the only time that the king and peasant, rich man and pauper, holy man and atheist, businessman and idiot are all equal is in the grave after death. The best we can do is make opportunities available through freedom and liberty, and this means there will be inequalities in society, but you do have a chance through the given opportunities. If we attempt to claim justice is everybody gets the same thing, then this creates a class system out of necessity that nothing is truly equal, and the unjust will attempt to change the class that you belong to: This is feudal society, and you will have a king and queen over you. What we can obtain is legal justice, in equal protection of the law nobody is more important than another, and this only works with an elected government in order to remove people who are considered unjust in the legislator, leader, judge, and enforcer of law.

  11. What system I think is FAIR, and what system I think would be the best for society are two different things.
    While everyone getting stuff in proportion to their hard work is FAIR, it isnt the best for society, because in society, not everyone is on an equal playing field.
    For example, someone who has to deal with crippling anxiety, cant get a job, and stuggle through life vs someone who is handed money, a job, everything form their parents….should they each get the same help form the government? In fairness, they should, but in reality, I believe they shouldn't. One person obv needs more help, and if the situations were reversed – I would want that help. Thats why, even if I were the well-off guy, I would understand that the other person COULD EASILY BE ME, and would want him helped more than myself.

  12. Nozick's assertion that we're entitled to stuff we have as long as we didn't obtain it unjustly is troubling to me. It's like he's saying "things are just because they are."
    Is it just to profit from privilege? Maybe not in the case of Wilt Chamberlain. Maybe so. Maybe he's profiting from the privilege of his anatomy. Maybe he's profiting from the privilege of his birth place, or even from the privilege of the time period into which he was born. I don't know anything about Chamberlain's life.
    My point is that Nozick makes a terrible argument for people who have more than they need, probably because having vast success and demanding more is pretty much indefensible. If you have the opportunity to help is there any point at which you have the obligation to help? If it affects you in a completely inconsequential way are you entitled to keep that money or is it unjust for you to even have?
    Nozick says "of course it's just for me to have this big ol' pile o' money because it's not unjust"
    That's the whole question Nozick!!

  13. I don't fully agree with this definition of justice.
    In my opinion, justice should mean precision and trueness – that a procedure is carried out properly without corruption or biases getting in the way.
    "Just" punishment is orthogonal to whether the punishment is deterrence-based or welfare-maximization-based. As long as everyone gets the same punishment for the same crime, justice is served on a low level.
    Of course, on a higher level one can also examine whether a law is in itself just, which then means: "Is it a well-crafted law which accomplishes what it sets out to do, while adhering precisely to the values of the country?".
    But first you need to decide on your values, and then you can determine just laws on that basis.
    So IMO, this video was really about foundational values or axioms rather than Justice per se .

  14. Negative v Positive Rights is really about defining ones ingroup (descrimination). All humans have ingroups- that is groups they share with freely. Though people define that group differently, leading to putting others in the outgroup for various reasons.

  15. Explain why the systems are the ones that benefit from the criminals. Here's an example… A man goes out and rapes a woman. the criminal gets caught. He goes to jail and or prison and is charged a fine. Where's the justice to that woman who was raped? Why are the systems only benefiting from the wrongdoings to the citizens. Why not force criminals to work hard labors making works easier for the citizens that work so hard and forced to pay so much in taxes? This country should be like paradise for its citizens and Hell for the criminals. In many ways the criminals have more rights than the law abiding citizens.

  16. I guess it depends, i personally think one should have a right to what they achieved through work or smarts, and should have the right to leave a mark as that is a part of having agency, which includes leaving your family more well off even if they themselves didnt earn it.

    But if the system you live under, the government that is, requires something by law, then they should provide that for you, you shouldnt be pushed to break a law simply from being less well off… now taxes i understand and agree with, but those are all lumped together and intrinsic to the system they are handled by the government and so you are paying to have the government basically, not a separate thing you are responsible for going out of the way to get yourself… seems like basic game design to me

  17. Rawls supported the principle you mentioned only under the condition that another one was applied first, according to which, each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all.

  18. Lol…..
    Some people become criminals just to punish people they think deserves to be punished because they believe that person has done something they think is wrong…….
    That is hilarious.

  19. I have no problem with mentally weak individuals who want revenge, as long as they do not call it Karma. If you want to be a criminal, be proud and do not hide behind KARMA. Be brave, say you are unable to continue with your life because someone did you wrong 20, 30 or 40 years ago……sad😊
    😁 and you want revenge to fill that empty gap you have in your brains.

  20. Nozick's example is extremely poorly thought out to the point it leaves out a huge portion of reality.
    Here is an additional question for the example of how many people attend a game with Chamberlain, compared to one without him playing:
    How many people will attend if ONLY Chamberlain, meaning, no team-mates for his team and no other team to play against? Just Chamberlain on the court by himself.
    Sure some people would attend, but probably less people than even the "no Chamberlain" attendance numbers.
    This could be taken further so there literally won't be ANYONE in attendance, if for example, you take out the people that constructed the stadium. Certainly Chamberlain didn't help do that did he?
    Anytime someone brings up the "he/she EARNED it argument" it is very clearly the person is literally delusional, ignorant, naive, and narcissistic. Since, no one in the history of humanity has solely earned everything by themselves, at the very least, everyone is dependent on someone birthing them into existence on this earth.

  21. Justice is a Utopian idea, in other words it's more of subjective things, so don't stress it. Besides laws that govern society with different systems. Who? Who decide needs? Marx??

    What's fair to you is unfair to another. What you think is justice others might disagree, considering age, different generations etc

    If Justice exists, the universe would be in synchronicity and order for humans ,, it's closer to chaos in theory.. Think of innocent children all over the world who are being tourtered and you will know that justice does not exist.

  22. I would argue that positive rights should exist insofar as they are as much the linchpins of a given society as positive liberties. People in a given society have as much right to the necessities of life within that society as they have to the fruits and freedoms afforded by their labors and their merits. Without the balance of cooperation and competition, societies and governments would lose their appeal and thus their power, and the inequality of one against the other will balance itself out by whatever means it can.

  23. Bad behavior is the result of malfunctioning robots that need to be fixed. This is why rehabilitative justice is the only kind that makes sense with a deterministic worldview…

  24. my concept of justice: something is right when more than fifty percent of the people benefit from it. Something is wrong when less than fifty percent of the people benefit from it.

  25. Justice is getting what is deserved based on what a supreme being determines is justified. For that reason, I don't think we will ever really see true justice. We can get close, but if all factors are not considered, we will not be acting just.

  26. so, regarding distributive justice, if the basketball player didn't want more then there wouldn't be a problem, and after all, you feel more joy from doing something you truly love than from stuff, so surely he should choose to do what he loves(or focus on it better if it is basketball) instead of want more things, both for his own mental health & joy, and also so life circumstances are easier for others thanks to more fair distribition of stuff.

  27. Thanks again. "And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbor that which thou choosest for thyself." ~ Bahá’u’lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

  28. So as to what justice is….. is there a right or wrong answer? Or is it just relative to what you personally feel? if so, then Justice means nothing and why the heck are you wasting your time watching this? – honestly searching for an answer, thanks

  29. The irony is that the NBA instituted the new rules for free throws and inbound passes to weaken Chamberlain's ability to dominate close to the basket.

  30. Paying to watch a basketball game is more rewarding than spending that money feeding poor people because it makes us feel happier according to our belief system. Change the mindset and people will save the poor.

  31. I believe in positive rights and in people having their basic human rights attended just because they're human. And I believe this is a job for the government to do. Who else would do it and what is the government for? For me, the government exists to see to people's basic human rights. I think inequality is intrinsic to society and to the world but I think it's pretty inhumane to just accept that some people don't have their basic needs attended if they can't get it for themselves. I'm talking about housing, food, health… Then, when everybody has the basics you can have some differences based on other factors.

  32. Hey Crashcourse! Absolutely love your videos! They're amazing! I was looking for a video on Universal Basic Income (UBI) and couldn't find any in your resources. Any chance we'll get one?

  33. Wait a second, wasn't "eye-for-an-eye" a facet of Hammurabi's Code, which predated the New Testament by like 2000 years and thus not biblical?

  34. Getting what we need. Justice! Justice is giving whats needed. Mental illusions are the drive for unjustice, therefore must every action be forgiven and understood as it will bring justice. Just ice. Just hard heart. Understand and give whats needed. Dont kill, dont capture, but heal. Justice will be needed. Justice is giving whats needed. We dont need bleeding. Peace.

  35. Retribution, rehabilitation and deterrence are the main forms of justice. I see retribution too much in the people and too much deterrence from the police, at least in the US

  36. Very important assumption that is missing in the example: all things being equal. IRL they are not. Which is why in order to "distribute" justice in a merit based way, you need to first insure equity (not equality, ie, you correct for inequities in the system)
    Non economics ex: Should all murders be punished the same? Self defense vs non-self defense.
    How to correct for inequities?
    First you determine what are the values of your society, then build your justice systems on to.
    Not so easy: genetics vs hard work, value to society vs intrinsic value etc. Monetary value? Disable or not? Etc.

  37. Ok. So using the example of of Wilt Chamberlain…I don't believe it went far enough. Questions: What if he was taking steroids to gain an advantage (considered illegal). Are you saying that we must monetize all talents because we live in a capitalist system, and if so, why do we value volunteerism then? Is the only way to compel people to do their best by the carrot (money) system? If so, why do we admire Salk and Tesla then, neither of whom believed their work should be monetized?

    When talking about positive vs. negative rights, there has to be an assumption regarding those libertarian views (negative rights) that everyone always plays by society's rules. This is a faulty assumption since we know other factors influence human behaviors (greed, etc.). If I produce a widget that people want (let's say an iPhone), the very nature of my corporation will be to maximize profits at the expense of whoever or whatever and this is actually legal precedent in the U.S. (Dodge vs. Ford Motor Co.). If this is justice for shareholders, how is it justice for the workers and communities they are located in?

    Continuing onto rehabilitation in justice. If the "wrongdoer" requires rehabilitation to understand how to fit into society, whose society (culture) are they fitting into. You could argue that often the wrongdoer has been socialized into a microculture where lack of economic opportunity has set up different rules from the larger, dominant culture, thereby creating a different reality for them. Do you return them to the same microculture (this is what typically happens) and if so does that even make sense? While punishment is at the core of most human societal beliefs (not quite a universal but close), and functionalism perceives deviance and its punishment as a function of society to prevent others from committing deviances (through knowledge of punishment as deterrence) it ignores this reality of microcultures existing. Restorative justice as merely community service relegates this service to a punishment (which is how most people perceive community service sentences anyway) rather than really attempting to provide alternative views of others (victim-perpetrator dichotomy). There are better restorative justice programs that exist outside of community service and those weren't even given honorable mention, including how effective philosophy classes are for prisoners in reducing recidivism and, if possible, having the "wrongdoer" and victim meet for a face to face conversation on their views on the deviant act.

    I know philosophy always leads to more questions than it answers but these questions demand answers and debate.

  38. Correction: "Eye for an Eye" isn't a Biblical form of justice… The mention of it in the Bible is a reference to Hammurabi's Code of Laws. This law is often paraphrased as "Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth".

  39. Everyone starts out differently its up to you to fight against the cosmic lottery and to take what you want in life with your own hands with the tools you are given. If what you do harms others odds, then you will face consequences of equal exchange.

    Idk just threw this together.

  40. This when human beings forget they are human beings, and everybody deserves a good, safe, dignified life. (Government taxing rich people– rich people steal from poor, middle class– so that's justice)

  41. So far, This is the one video from you guys that really gave me a headache.
    You guys seem to be speaking about morality and ethics and not justice.

    Should have stuck with Adams Smith’s definition of Justice, funny you didn’t even mentioned him. Doing so would have let you explore the root, which then would help you explain the other so called school of thought on justice.

    Smh..

  42. Got introduced to this channel in college and still watching and learning after graduating. Love the content !

  43. A very touching and important video. DFTBA! (use of DFTBA is resticted to the sense that I have unbiased use, if the authors of this video present feedback op-positional to my usage I will augment and refrain from its usage.)

  44. If a man has destroyed the eye of a man of the gentleman class, they shall destroy his eye …. If he has destroyed the eye of a commoner … he shall pay one mina of silver. If he has destroyed the eye of a gentleman's slave … he shall pay half the slave's price – Hammurabi's own words

  45. Usually the thought experiments make me wonder and actually reflect, but Nozick's thought experiment only made me yell at the computer. Chamberlain being better doesn't mean he works harder, why is he more deserving? This puts people who aren't geniuses in a position of disadvantage … And I am SURE no one would attend the games had it only been him running around the court all alone.

  46. Justice: No person is MISTREATED, and everyone who needs help, gets the most CONSTRUCTIVE HELP.
    -Neely Fuller Jr.

  47. Stuff and justice makes me want to cry. For example those who fight against policies all correctness by publishing articles filled with racist, homophobic and misogynistic rhetoric, valued at £20,000 for the people who don’t want to see other people as equals. This is “just” because the freedom of the people who have an undercurrent of hatred to women, LGBTQ peoples, people of colour are “getting their say”. But then it happens through some of the most powerful people in the world as their get paid more and more to say the repugnant and can afford to do what they want.
    This is how it’s been for thousands of years. We still have to put up with it because moguls rule and the rest of us are pawns. Moguls can hoard their wealth and pay others to spout grotesque ramblings to rally the worst in others (maybe so they don’t feel so bad and can justify the pawns being pawns by matter of percentile of those who agree).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *