Post Archive

I just live in Florida

There is money in the economy that is untapped - government spending can in many times free up that money, and so some would say that increasing government spending increases economic activity at a higher proportion - every dollar of government spending translates to more than a dollar of economic activity.

Just be sure to spend more than you raise in taxes! You wouldn’t want to fuel this multiplier with money that would already have been put back into the economy in a multiplier way too! But also don’t forget deficit spending can be bad too!

Ah, the nonsensical nature of capitalist economies.

Well government spending does go back into the economy - unless it’s something like direct foreign aid or something. It can be spent on things like infrastructure, which not only put money into peoples pockets (paying the workers), but it also can provide the basis for improving the economy (infrastructure supports the transport of goods, healthcare keeps workers healthy, and education ensures a skilled workforce).

Healthcare needs to be accessible to all, the best way of ensuring this is through free healthcare. I mean there should really be only so many places to profit off of other people’s literal pain and suffering. Infrastructure and (affordable) public transport also make sense because it makes it easier for people to get around and interact with the economy - if it was totally privatized, it could be a deterrent to use. Not to mention it doesn’t really seem right to charge people for walking down the road for profit. Do you really want to have to pay every single time you want to walk down the sidewalk?

Overall, in my opinion, public amenities help to give people a common experience and a concern for others - just speaking from my own experience, when I’m at my public library, I find myself much more caring and courteous than when I’m at a book store - not that I’m uncourteous, but I feel more separated.

This is why a lot of people don't refer to government-sponsored healthcare systems as 'free', because you're right. But having the government in charge of the healthcare system drives prices down for everyone, because private businesses are, by nature, more interested in profit than doing good for their society. People will still become doctors, and people will still work to innovate on medications and techniques, because when needs are met, the good in people can more easily shine through. Also the 'pay half your income to the government' thing is, as far as I've seen, American propaganda. In Canada, at least (and to be fair, we don't have government-sponsored dental, vision, or mental health coverage), we pay less of our income to taxes for healthcare than Americans do for healthcare subsidisation.

Competition is hardly the only way to breed innovation, and it's generally not a method that works super well. Also the voucher system isn't good. If someone who is poor has a really bad year and goes through all of their vouchers, what do you suggest then? Do they just have to pay full price? What about the person who spends a year never needing to go to the hospital except for a checkup? Seems like if everyone just paid in the same amount, it would invariably balance out better for everyone collectively.

I'm going to keep it entirely honest with you here, I trust a government that is held accountable to the people through elections significantly more than I do a company that can do with these services whatever they like. I don't know why you'd ever trust an entity with a public service and not get any say in it.

Where did this come from? Lol, bookstores and libraries can coexist, they do in real life. And they can coexist in fully socialist states as well.

As for the last part, I don't know what Castagovia was on about, so I just said that I didn't want libraries to not exist. And as for the part where you said that people don't need to pay half their income to the government, that is true in many places, and in the US, it is unfortunate that the healthcare system is managed so poorly such that the government has to tax their citizens so much for their healthcare (Most American healthcare is actually state-owned, contrary to what many believe) and so, of course, such a system should not be used.

As for the "competition is not the only way to breed innovation" part, it isn't, but in my opinion, companies have much more incentive to innovate as if they don't, all the work that they put into the company will disappear as others start to do better than them.

About the vouchers, they can have, say, an expiry date on them, and if someone doesn't use their assigned vouchers in the year, they will have to give them back to the government, and the government can give the unused vouchers to someone who needs the help more in the next year. This way, the money that the government gives out is only spent on what the government gives it to you for, and any unused ones can go to helping those that have worse luck. And if, somehow, the entire nation needs to go to the hospital and there aren't any vouchers left, the government can intervene if necessary and provide aid by paying more to the hospitals.

Finally, about the infrastructure companies: I understand why you would trust your elected government more than a company, but the government can also build some roads where needed and/or even cooperate with the corporations that build the roads to help administer them and pay the corporations for the roads that they built. This also helps to reduce the size of the government and the strain that is put on administration of the country.

Not sure one gains very much by having the same ratio of income being devoted to mandatory expenditures under the illusion of choice. If 90% of my income goes to rent, electric, healthcare, and other mandatory expenses, is any of that really my free choice? That was pretty much my IRL this time ten years ago, and given that my effective tax was around 6%, was living in piss poor conditions, and working full time, going to say that taxes weren't what was wrong with that dynamic.

So basically free healthcare but the difference is that, in your scenario, the government is sponsoring a profit margin to a third party that doesn't actually contribute a product. Insurance companies do not create innovation, they absorb money without providing a service. If we're talking real healthcare companies, they pretty much know what they're doing. You're not going to find a novel new way of making insulin for 5% less in patient savings when the status quo in a free market system is passing on 800% of costs to the consumer.

Competitive free market ideas work poorly in theory, but in situations where people's lives depend on the goods being purchased, they are entirely without function in practice. You cannot boycott purchasing medical care that you depend on to live. If every healthcare provider in your nation is prohibitively expensive, your options are to pay that which is prohibitively expensive anyway or die. Some choice.

Little more than half=most

No idea why you thought it would be a relevant strategy to reply to my actual life experience with how a game went in a government simulator, whose programming was undoubtedly paid for and carried out by a company with a vested interest in having economic viability characterised in a certain way.

I'll be happy to discuss real world issues with you whenever you please.

"In character", Sylh Alanor is a nation of immortal elves, but the source of their immortality was shut off for a century, so only one currently-living elf has memories from before 1900. The rest lived under an invasion force until 2017, so for a few years after they were fiercely attached to identifying as the El'vhen and speaking only Ha'raj'vi'dirth. But given the importance of Refugia in negotiating their liberation, the elves have continuously and gratefully put themselves into the service of the region as a whole, and as of earlier this year, officially consider themselves to be Refugi first.

The Outer Planets Alliance has been spacefaring for thousands of years, and the nation you see here in Refugia is only an ambassador group and station orbiting the planet Refugia is located in. The people of the OPA identify with their country.

Notice:

All hail Sylh Alanor, supreme empress of...wait no, that's not right. Uhh, ah yes democratically anointed champion of World Assembly Affairs, coming to an RO slot near you, this Saturday - Saturday - Saturday, July 4th. No one else found the inner courage to challenge her unstoppable ascent to the top, but splinter governments may continue to train in under ground bunkers waiting for the next opportunity to strike.

This concludes the mid-year election cycle. Thank

I'm voting in favor as well, though I find clause 7 and everything past it either null or redundant; and therefore annoying to read.

Citizens of my NS country identify primarily as members of the Human Race. Other than that, it's up to them whether they identify as Gerballists, as Refugi, or both, and no polls have been taken about this.

I recognize the flag of Nunavut in the regional flag, what are the others? (The third one from the left on the bottom row is really cool)

I can't get over how good this is. I love it more than any other Canada Day celebration we could have done. You did a fantastic job.

Congratulations everyone :D we did it, even though we were growing considerably throughout the year.

Oh cool, I really think that some of the things that were done in those times were extremely unacceptable, and I saw on a news article that the catholic schools mistreated the kids because "they had no way to be spiritual as they were all heathens", which is just a terrible excuse and really shows that the religious aren't the "pure" people they claim to be.

In other news, China called for a human rights probe into the western countries claiming to want to uncover any further atrocities committed in those nations, and I appreciate the chutzpah and the whataboutism on a global scale like that, but seriously, China?

As someone who lives in the East, in a very oppressive and hierarchical society, I think that a nation should have all suspected rights offences cleared before being able to call for a probe.

In other news, I just got a space program YAY!!!!!

Then literally no nation would be able to call for a probe. Having hypocrisy called out isn't going to stop China from being scrutinised, they've still got everyone's eyes on them. I have no problem with the west being called out, as someone living in a country that has committed atrocities against its indigenous population and has convinced the rest of the world we're the super polite and friendly people.

I mean, the logic the CCP is using doesn't really matter in this instance. Nobody here is saying hell yeah go CCP. I'm just happy that the west is being called out for trying to speak from any position of moral authority, which is an incredibly hypocritical position. So yeah, drag all of them. Put human rights probes into every country. Especially the ones who pretend like they're the moral guardians of the universe.

cats have just been granted citizenship in Middanowah...best issue EVER!!! freaks out

Map update coming within the next week. Good time to put in an app if you have no yet done so

I will be using the next file for some overly complicated project ideas: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1287372

https://www.nationstates.net/page=ga

anyone feel like Tin just want's their name on everything ?

So overall I think you're not far off the mark, and 99% of the things she writes aren't usually in line with my thoughts or beliefs, but that's within a framework of judging what she's writing. In this particular case, however, she's repealing something she already replaced, and her replacement was better than the original. So the repeal is sort of the 'two' in a one-two punch, and is sensible.

The republicans in the United States should take a look at the replace and then repeal framework

How exactly do you tell if something is an easter egg issue?

One of the ideas I support wholeheartedly is that of communalism: a system were subdivisions of a nation, from villages and towns to counties and provinces/districts/states etc have a level of autonomy from each other and from the national government. I see it as an alternative to both federalism and centralism, inspired mostly by the system of the ancient Greek city-states and the more modern Orthodox Christian inspired ideals of communalism. I believe it is good and even healthy to support and be proud of your local community, the same way someone is proud of their whole country.

Through communalism ideas of direct democracy, environmental protection and more autonomy from the state can be achieved, as well as the advancement of fellowship between humans. What I want to ask is, what others think of communalism as a concept?

Well,I don't believe that these subdivisions should have so much power as to be able to declare independence or restrict civil liberties.The central government should still have the final say over issues such as these.I just believe that the residents of a specific region should be able to decide over local issues,such as administration,finance,civil engineering and culture,without that meaning that they don't follow national laws.

Not really.I'm personally not really a fan of federalism.It would be mostly something between federalism and unitarianism...A modestly decentralized state maybe. Subdivisions still have to obey national laws and function based on them, but they can make decisions regarding local issues (such as engineering and administration) and elect local leaders, maybe even in a direct democratic manner. One of my main inspirations is Konstantinos Karavidas, a greek socialist lawyer and thinker,who wrote many important books on that matter.Karavidas believed in a strong national government that would help the people, but also in the creation of local democratic administrations that have a decree of autonomy from the state, and ultimately obey the laws of the central government, while being able to address local issues themselves.

So a couple of years ago I actually got two Easter eggs on another nation without even understanding what they were or that I could do things to get them. I was just kinda like "huh, that was a weird issue."

It's funny because I have zero luck getting them on any other nations now lol.

Heya Refugi, friends, and assorted guests,

Thought I’d drop in to start the conversation on Repeal: “International Salvage Laws”

Drafting thread: here

Repeal Target: GAR# 50: International Salvage Laws

Summary:

This one’s pretty short and to the point. The original resolution has three main clauses, ‘noting’ a lack of previously-written legislation on the subject, ‘aware’ness of the potential benefits of a resolution, and ‘recommend’ations for various guidelines. The target was written in 2009 and, like a lot of resolutions from those days, doesn’t go into many specific details.

The repeal proposal’s arguments are centred around that last point. The author starts off ‘recognizing’ the lack of any actual mandates within the resolution, and notes that there’s no justification for the resolution at all. In the thread, the author states that their intention is to remove all resolutions they don’t think are effective.

My initial thoughts:

So I'm kind of ambivalent. Upon reading the repeal proposal and the target resolution, I agree with the points in the repeal. It’s also well-constructed, though I’d quibble about the language of the ‘recognizing’ clause, but it’s not anything that would cause me to vote against. That being said, the main arguments against repealing brought up in the repeal thread have given me pause. There’s nothing wrong with the old resolution, it certainly doesn’t block anything stronger from being proposed or passed to work on top of it. It’s been up for over 12 years and nobody’s repealed it yet.

Ultimately, however, it’s here and it’s going up for vote, so I feel we might as well vote for it. The repeal draft is right, the original doesn’t actually mandate anything, and therefore repealing it won’t do any harm. There is a draft for a replacement on the forum, though it’s a bit out of my depth and I’d like to have a longer conversation about it if and when it reaches quorum.

So what do you all think? Let me know, so I can collect our thoughts and write up an IFV before it goes to vote tomorrow at major.

Looks like it was written by a bot and that bot hasn't been active in over a year. Not really sure there's a lot of value in a system like that.

Restating what I wrote in Floor-5 yesterday,

I'm also fundamentally against the repeal. I don't like that this proposal was targeted by the author on the grounds that the World Assembly is not allowed to make non-binding recommendations. It's mechanically possible to do this, there is GenSec policy on resolution classification when this is the case. The general tone that the resolution was solely composed of recommendations and that thi was overlooked or mis-represented is, itself, misrepresentation. I'm also pretty :wat: about the author complaining about the target author's drafting process, given that the proposal author would not have been founded for another eight or so years at the time. Certainly since the status quo then did not revolve around the drafting gatekeeping that has become the norm now.

Ultimately, I feel like the GA should have the ability to issue resolutions that give guidance instead of legally binding mandates. Should there be legally binding mandates? Absolutely, and nearly all the time. However, the ability to issue recommendations is a tool in our arsenal, and one I affirm we should have the ability to retain and use. Nothing in the target blocks additional legislation on the subject. The world, overall, gains nothing from this repeal except to indulge the author to axe something he doesn't like. Unequivocally no support from me.

Alright, and here it is. The first IFV of the new WAA Councillor term. Let me know what you think and what might need changed.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1567595

Good lord, look at these two 10/10 dispatches

Seems like the NSWiki doesn't get most things right, then :P

You're not banned, but your friend was.

We just don't take it too well if someone just arrives in our community and starts picking fights immediately.

ああ、私の。。

That's certainly an interesting description. Albeit, wrong, but interesting.

Hey everyone, sorry for the delay on this, I'm having trouble getting into the habit of regularly checking the Security Council after it wasn't used for a month. There is currently a proposal at vote (the first declaration, in fact), and it's my opinion that it's entirely uncontroversial. If anyone wants to have a discussion on it, which I definitely encourage, please read it here. In the meantime, I have attached the regional information-for-voters dispatch. Let me know what you think!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1568800

Up tonight in the GA (because my job will never stop lol), Conscientious Objection To Abortion:

Proposal Text.

Drafting Thread.

Summary:

The author believes that stipulations should be put in place to allow doctors who have a bona fide (or real) moral objection to abortion to refuse service to people seeking one. The doctors must have stated that objection publicly in advance and must "refer persons seeking an abortion to appropriate resources to access such services".

Initial thoughts:

I don't think it's going to be much of a surprise here, but I'm against this. Significantly against. There's this weird thought process where, while I don't think the author has it, a lot of people in the drafting thread have stated, people think literally any doctor could be forced to perform an abortion. That's simply not the case. A podiatrist isn't going to be giving a patient abortion pills, and your GP isn't going to be performing a surgical abortion procedure. It's my opinion that if you're in family planning or aiming to become an OB-GYN, this is a matter of fact procedure and you must agree to perform them when they come up. Simple as that.

Quite against.

Alright everyone, since I didn't get any responses to the discussion post, I just assumed it meant everyone agreed fully with my opinion >:D SO WE WENT EVEN MORE EXTREME.

But in all reality, I'll try to get discussions up a bit earlier from now on, it was just that I'd just posted something.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1569115

安全保障理事会と反ファシスト提案について.

Regarding the security council and it's recent advancement of anti fascism proposal. I feel the act should heavily be supported(not surprising).

However, to me personally, what is surprising, is, as of now, 1 thousand nations seem to vote against the act. It's interesting but I suppose I'll look more into the act before jumping to conclusions.

I just think it goes too harsh on fascists. Which is why I'm voting against. I totally agree with the general spirit, I just think it goes too far, prosecuting and punishing fascists and their supporters. I don't think a beliefe or thought should be punishable.

Protecting yoyrself and your region from them is one thing, taking harsh measures against them is another.

What do you call a dog that does magic?

[spoiler]a labracadabrador[/spoiler]

I have always believed the freedom of speech does not include hate speech and actions of hate. Therefore I think that we must stamp out fascism because it is an ideology solely based on irrational hate and nationalism.

I don't think we need to whatabout when it comes to fascism.

I agree, fascism is totally evil, but it’s not about fascism, it’s about tolerating other people’s civil right to have and express their opinion, as misguided as it is. It would be better to try and educate them on why it’s wrong instead of outright banning it. Blind intolerance will only create resentment and aggression.

I believe in human rights, and a key tenant of human rights is the right for a person to express their opinion, no matter what it is. And just because a fascist could talk about their flawed beliefs doesn’t mean anyone else has to listen or agree. People still have the right to disprove the ideas perpetuated by them, and with an idea as flawed as fascism, that should be easy.

It would be far better to give people a civic education so they could learn how to be less “vulnerable to disinformation” as you put it, instead of outright banning an ideology in the name of civil rights.

.

Hence why I said that people should focus on a greater civic education, so that those small pockets no longer exist. If you ban it, then you give fascists greater power to exploit those small pockets, as they’ll now have even more of a scapegoat in the very government that outlawed them.

And your perspective is completey hypocritical if you believe that just banning ideologies that you don’t like leads to more freedom. Banning an ideology will just lead to the respective community turning into a political echo chamber for whatever beliefs that the people with the power hold