Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

I especially can't trust you, but I can't yet trust Haseland because he's new to the region.

Yes a few months should be fine. 1 to 2 at the max.

I am going to go eat some cinnamon rolls and drink some sweet tea BBL.

Mmm, cinnamon.

Let us throw cinnamon at the Communists!

I think we should throw the products of capitalism at them instead. I don't think any communist would be a communist for long if they were to put their concept of "hard work" to the test in a capitalist society. If they fail, they would have to blame themselves or else risk more failure. If they succeed, they would realize the monetary value of hard work and live in luxury (which is superior to what "luxury" all citizens of an egalitarian society would be afforded).

That works too.

I'll just go eat my cinnamon now.

Recruitment is sorely needed.

Ok, when I have some time I'll do another recruiting round.

Just got back from the SAT.

Cool.

Also, I doubt I'll be around here very much within the next week or so. Just to let you all know.

So what do y'all think about the most recent IRS scandal? I'm really utterly bewildered by the whole scheme.

Also, HEYYY, I'm the most influential here.

So you're gonna influence us to be more influential? Cool. :3

I think it is either cons trying to make BO look bad (he did that good enough himself), or it is liberals targeting opposition and not wanting to admit it. But Cons would do the same thing, so I really don't care.

American politics is horrible and sickening.

An abuse of power. Nixon got the boot for stuff like this.

But we CAN'T Impeach Obama! That's Racist. And Fascist! And Evil! And Selfish! And Uber-Patriot Constitutionalist! And Christian! And White! And.....Republican.....And....And.....

Post self-deleted by Pevvania.

And of course, i would be lazy reading the whole thing up, but what you are saying is that Hitler is centre-left authoritarian?

Basically. But disregarding the authoritarian-libertarian scale, one could even label him a hard-left dictator.

Makes sense, actually.

Nazism: Left or Right?

Preamble: Although what I have to say is relevant to fascism as a whole, I will mostly be referring to Nazi Germany’s governmental policies.

Fascism and, more specifically, Nazism are frequently dubbed ‘extreme right-wing’ not just by the left but by the average observer, regardless of political alignment. But why is this? Often, left- and right-wing are incorrectly labelled as wishing to control the economy but not your social life, and wishing to control your social life but not the economy, respectively.

This is a popular misconception. In actuality, the left-right scale refers purely to economics, with the social dimension of politics covered by the authoritarian-libertarian scale. Considering this, why should Nazism and fascism be considered ‘extreme right-wing’? Is it because of their extreme nationalism? Their discriminatory social policy? Their economics?

In truth, none of the above bares the hallmarks of the right-wing. In fact, I’d argue that Hitler was much closer to Stalin on the political scale than to any ‘right-wing’ leader. Think about it. If the right wing is supposed to be the most capitalistic, economically liberating ‘wing’ of politics, then how can the fascists be classed as right wing at all? Sure, they were very socially authoritarian, but right wing? Not at all.

On the extreme left of politics, you’ve got men like Stalin and Mao. Communists and state socialists believe in destroying free enterprise and placing the economy under government control. Under Communist leaders, land was redistributed and collectivized, industry was centrally planned by the state and the concept of selling a good or service for profit was made criminal. Meanwhile on the far-right is anarcho-capitalism; a market completely unchained by any governmental restrictions that’s supposed to self-regulate. Companies large and small are unbounded by any taxes, regulations, quotas or any other law that could impede the progress of a firm. The market would have no limits.

This is nothing like neither Fascist Italy nor Nazi Germany. In the latter, Hitler frequently derided capitalism as ‘the product of international Jewry’, yet also lambasted Marxism. He attacked both right and left, describing himself as a centrist. Yet if anything, he should be described as a hard-left dictator. When he came to power, he implemented a number of Keynesian economic policies and accelerated huge public works programs (such as the autobahn project) designed to get Germany back to work. Many industries were nationalized. He gave subsidies and other economic incentives for businesses to stimulate the economy, while also curbing the power of corporations.

Throughout his rule, but especially after 1936, Hitler made Germany increasingly militaristic. He placed increasing emphasis on rearming the nation and soon enough began centrally planning the economy around the prospect of rearmament. Factories were converted to produce military arms and many corporations were placed under the ‘guidance’ of the state. This accumulated huge deficits that would come back to haunt the nation during and after the Second World War. Meanwhile, many capitalist enterprises unrelated to production of armaments began to go into decline.

Following Hitler’s policy of ‘autarky’ (economic self-sufficiency), he imposed very strict limitations on foreign exports, which fell by 9% between 1933 and 1936. Wage and price controls were introduced to curb inflation. Imports were tightly controlled, as was the issuance of stock dividends. In a nutshell, the economy prioritized what it needed to prepare for war, rather than producing consumer goods and encouraging private enterprise. Of course, there was quite a bit of private capitalism. But as I’ve mentioned, after 1936 it became far more regulated in favour of economic self-sufficiency. Massive tax rates on profits (reaching up to 98% at times) limited businesses self-financing. However, larger corporations were exempt from profit tax at the expense of extensive state intervention in their operations to better organise the economy for the Four Year Plan.

Of course, there were some more right-leaning aspects of the regime: slashed welfare programs, expectation of people to find a job without the government’s help (despite the fact that the state in many occasions forced people into employment), and very low income tax rates. However, individualism was suppressed, as government propaganda expected citizens from all classes to collaborate to serve the state. Statism is a very left-wing idea, often contrasting to right-wing ideals of individualism.

But how can Nazi Germany be right-wing at all if it supported ideas of conformity, obedience and, one way or the other, the collective? If the right-wing is about individualism and economic freedom, then why are Hitler’s Germany and fascism frequently dubbed as extreme-right? The truth is probably left-wing perpetuation. The victors write the history books, and the idea that fascism is extreme-right probably originated within the bowels of left-wing academia, that quickly spread to become a commonly accepted fact the world over.

But this is not true. In conclusion, Nazism and fascism are not right-wing at all, they are very left-wing. Of course, capitalism was technically at work, but centrally-planned industry, extensive statism, huge public works programmes and autarky ambitions prevented the ideologies from ever being even centre-right. Fascist economics are very often mislabelled as extreme-right, though in reality it’s difficult to pinpoint it on the political scale or even describe it. Some people could describe it as socialist, some state capitalist. In my opinion, fascism is centre-left authoritarian, best described as social Darwinian command capitalism, a bizarre amalgamation between the free enterprise of the West and the collectivist, planned economies of communist nations.

Regardless, fascism was an embarrassing footnote in history that showed just how dangerous the left can be when power is concentrated in the hands of a few and dictators are allowed to rise to power. Despite the evils of Nazism, a greater evil emerged out of its destruction: the rise in power on the global stage of the USSR. While liberty triumphed in one part of the world out of Hitler’s defeat, communism reappeared as an even more dangerous type of tyranny to the freedom of millions. But that is a discussion for another day.

Very good post, Pevvania.

Thank you, Liberosia. I did quite a bit of recruiting before, by the way. I'm not very good at it, but I'll try to do it as often as possible! :)

Excellent. That post is impressive and it is something that more Americans should learn about.

Americans don't Learn!

We re-elected Obama!

Sorry I haven't been on recently.

With any luck I should return to seeing to the region's affairs soon, but I can't make any promises.

Obama and Romney were both terrible candidates. Romney had good policies but was untrustworthy, and Obama had bad policies but wasn't a snake.

Both are horrible, as is the American political system (parties) and the current power of the executive office.

Decentralization is good. We need to go back to the near-confederal or confederal structure.

IMHO, Congress is in a pretty sorry state on both sides of the aisle. I prefer the GOP, of course, but they need reforming along more libertarian lines. Cue Rand Paul.

NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvuyI0b5xNM

Rand Paul is a neo-con. Not like his father at all. Leftists want him to be the face of libertarianism to shatter the true meaning of the movement.

He's basically just drawing attention to a politicians being a politician. Rand Paul ain't as libertarian as others, including his father, but apart from supporting states' rights on drugs and marriage, he believes in limited government. Any way you look at it, he's currently the best hope libertarians have got.

well neo-cons did more damage then good

@The Reaganist Republic of Pevvania

you really don't like lefties ;)

No. I'm not supporting that.

You know who else supports limited government? Mitt Romney. But his limited government is a smal, yet uber effective "anti-terrorist" one. Rand is a neo-con disgracing Ayn's name.

@Zuiderkruis, I don't dislike lefties, but I hate quite a lot of leftist ideologies. And also, what's up with your economy? 100% public sector?! 0_o

@NST, what's better, a Chinese knock-off of the iPhone or nothing at all? A tangarine claiming to be an orange or no fruit? A fat girlfriend or no girlfriend? Even though he's not as libertarian as many people would like, he's certainly a step in the right direction at least.

I wanna go communistic :-)

You know we're anti-Communist, right?

I'd argue that I'd rather have no president if not a libertarian one.

Again, vote for Nobody 2016! Nobody will fix the economy, solve your problems, win the war on Terror!

Pessimism, that's NOT the American spirit

It's not pessimism. It's Realism. Republicans won't win for a little while, and Democrats suck. If a libertarian can't win, we're screwed. The only other parties are the socialist-communist-"greens" and the centrists.....

Y'know, one of the things I love most about America is its flaws. Many Americans talk about the bad things about their country as if they matter a lot, but to an Aussie like me they seem pretty small compared to our problems. Australia is the big government capital of the world, ruined by thousands upon thousands of pointless regulations, laws and taxes enacted by politicians with nothing to do. We're currently run by a dumb bitch insistent on expanding the state and appeasing her Chinese superiors. What a fücking joke of a government...

Anyway, I'm astonished that you can still maintain your brilliant culture and sense of freedom. I can't wait to move there.

The reason I'm not an anarchist is, simply, I love my country. I am impressed with our cultural and (used to) like our government. In a sense, I am a patriot. I still salute the flag, sing the anthem, and whistle Dixie.

I don't understand anarchy. The transferal of order to corporations and rough riders doesn't seem very nice to me. You'd always have to be in the same place, to make sure that nobody was trying to loot your house (which they would be doing anyway).

Strangely, Liberosia, I do that too. :I

Lol, you do that but you're Australian? Do you even know Dixie?

It's really weird, I know. x) I know Dixie but I prefer songs like 'America the Beautiful', 'Hail, Columbia' and 'Stars and Stripes'.

You're in the wrong country, pal.

Anarchy does not transfer authority to rough riders or corporations. This is mad max's anarchy, which the only people who advocate that are sh1tty rock bands and anarcho-primitivists (let's return to the stone age!).

I believe in civil anarchy. I believe in a voluntary society. Anarcho-capitalism. Corporations don't exist very often in free markets (zero regulation), and when they do, they are torn down by economic warfare (business struggle and innovations). The Drive to make a better, more efficient product will eventually render them obsolete, and they will collapse. That is why there is no authority in a free market, in a sense. All authority is toppled on a regular basis.

So, I stand against authority. I believe authority is a backwards concept that causes violence and dispair. Liberty is the cure. If you believe in taxation, you believe in forceful theft to feed government needs. If you believe in drug control, you believe you have the right to tell another human being what they can not put in their body. If you believe in gun control, you simply don't believe in liberty. If you believe in enforcing a state currency, you believe that the government can print said currency and intentionally or unintentionally devalue someone's property, violating their property.

If you believe in control, you do not believe in freedom. That's fact.

The question is: HOW MUCH freedom do you believe in? Think about it for a while. I know my answer.

To clarify, I do not stand against the proposition of a minarchist government, and am for it as a step in the ladder of statism:

We already past the monarchies. Monarchy is dead, in most places. We have moved to the constitutional republic with the American Revolution. Great thing. Very good.

But now, here is the next step: constitutional federation.

Then, confederation.

Then decentralized libertarian confederation.

Then, Minarchist confederation.

Then, dissolution of confederal government, creating localized government.

Finally, after a long wait, we get to the fun part: government backing off, slowly. Economically first. Then socially. Then peacefully dissolving. Creation of a anarchist society.

I agree with every single word NST has written. He puts it exquisitely.

Life, in the state of nature, is nasty, brutish, and short.

I'm afraid the state will always reemerge in society. The key is to control it, and the most effective way to do that is minarchy.

How will it emerge?

Those who attempt to make a "state" and enforce it on unwilling people will be shot.

In a true voluntaryist society, states can exist. Syndicalism can exist. But they are voluntary agreements between consenting individuals. A community could create a local democracy, so long as they aren't enforcing their laws on those who did not consent to be so.

Syndicalism/Socialism can exist, as a business can be completely owned and operated by the workers, or people can live on communes. The world will exist without states, just voluntary agreements on a local level.

The world can't exist without states because it can't get rid of greed, corruption, or crime. This is what anarchists and anarcho-communists fail to understand.

It is easiest for a totalitarian government to rise when there is no legitimate government to challenge them. Your idea is that a scrappy, motley group of gun-toting individuals can always be there to successfully defend everyone from a ruthless and organized band of criminal warlords whenever they rise from the shadows.

A conservative would not let his guard down.

My time is up, see you guys tomorrow. I hope.

Wrong. First, greed is not a problem.

Second, what state is there to corrupt?

Third, what is better at stopping crime? The Police or yourself? Remember, when seconds count, the police is ONLY minutes away!

The free market will provide the needs for people to live. For example, a community of people, say fifty, could all decide that they want a private security company to defend their town. They simply hire one, and defend their town and their property. Or, they could simply have people pay to have their house defended. It is completely voluntary, as you could defend your property yourself, but the difference between this and taxes is that this would actually go to directly defending you and you family.

I see no totalitarianism in this. You clearly understand nothing past the fact that anarchy has no existent state, and even that part is a tough pill for you to swallow.

In a anarchist society, specifically voluntaryist, the free market provides all necessary goods or services.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE9dZATrFak

Watch this! It's kind of long, but it explains how this idea of private security could function with third party arbitration.

And another thing: anything I say may eventually be rendered obsolete as the free market could find a more effective way to provide the service of security. That's the beauty of a genuine free market: it will always work in our favor, one way or another.

One "scrappy, motley group" would not be it. It would be many businesses that provide a service for their profit.

There needs to be a government to maintain justice, law and order and to defend the nation from foreign threats. And what about those who can't help themselves? What would they do without a government? What would a homeless, wheelchair-bound person do in an anarchy?

CI, your logic fails precisely because of what you said. You say that men can not be trusted to govern themselves and themselves only, so you suggest that we choose a few men to govern all men? A conservative and a liberal behave the exact same way in a position of power; they abuse their constituents by corruption, agression, violence and a monopoly on crime. The state is the only insitution in the world which is allowed to commit crimes and agression.

Let's watch out to not make these discussions hostile. Discussions like these are good, they can open someone's eyes, but only if we discuss this on a friendly basis. This is after-work stuff.

Indeed, Snabagag. At the end of the day, we're all rightist to some degree here, aren't we? ^_^

I don't consider my self rightist........

I consider my self economic free marketeer. I believe in no economic regulation. "Far-right" in a sense would imply a mild bit of economic nationalism and protection from foreign markets.

Back onto topic:

A Wheel-chair bond person could still work (I know there are some who do), and pay just the way the rest of the town did for that protection service. The reason this is preferable to government is that a government can't be held accountable by the market. If a business doesn't provide the service, they don't get paid. But government steals you money through taxation, violating your natural right to property, and spend it on things that 50% of the time don't actually affect you as an individual.

People are bad, so we need a government made up of people. People are stupid, so we need a government made up of people......

As for Pevvania's ideas: countries don't exist in an anarchist world. Countries are fake lines drawn on a map that gangs claim as their own. The people there have cultures, but those don't need a formal state to exist. Even if we went with a Stalin-like idea of anarchy (anarchism in one country), PMCs and civilian militias can defend the country. everyone essentially defends their local area and bam. That's better than the US Military, or should I say, World Police.

In anarchy, if you are homeless, that is really your own fault. You had to have caused that through spending too much money. Every action has a reaction, and it is typical of leftists to try to disconnect rights with responsibilities.

Government doesn't maintain law, order or justice:

Look at the Middle East for government-run order.

Look at Obama for following the Constitution (supreme law of the land).

Look at those who commit victimless crimes and go to prison for endless times: Drug "crimes", owning a firearm, using the Silk Road, Agorism....

I ain't in the mood for a long debate right now, so I'll give this one to you.

This is where we agree - a government large enough to govern (as in rule) will always abuse its power.

A government that acts as a deterrent to crime and foreign states only, not even a government but more of a state consisting solely of a people-run legislative/executive/judicial system (and a military), is a partner, something people cannot be safe without.

We're safe without a bureaucracy, however. We don't even need a president or a prime minister or a two-house congress or parliament. All we need are citizen volunteers (unpaid) to write laws (simple as thou shalt not murder), a few more volunteers to organize a police department and military to enforce the laws, and a citizen court system to interpret the law. That's it. This is just as, if not more, effective as paying bodyguards (which would do jack squat in the event of a military invasion, for instance). Allow a state to have a government with actual power over other things (like the economy or the schools or even the environment), however, and like you say, it will be corrupt. True minarchy consists of only one mandatory enforcement anyway: protection.

Maybe a military isn't even necessary. If a small state could organize all individual militias under one banner in case of an attack it would serve the same purpose.

Nations of Libertatem,

I am pleased to announce that negotiations on an anti-tyranny treaty between our region and New Republica and the Federation of Free States will begin in the neutral region of Cashnatchee. As your Manager of State, I will be representing Libertatem in the negotiatons. I invited you all to telegram me any suggestions that you would like to be discussed. I will be leaving shortly for the summit. Hopefully, the summit will be a success. Godspeed.

The Free State Of Bavaria

Manger of State

Hello I am back from the Rolling Stones concert~

So, what do y'all think of my new flag & nation type?

I like it. The flag is cool.

Hey all, I'd like to introduce a new Party when and if the PACT Amendment is passed.

I'd like to call it something like the "Christian Democratic Party" or the "Christian Libertarian Party". Telegram me if you'd like to join and if you might want to become the leader of this new Party. I find that all our Parties have secular trends; this is due to the Party system being government run. When it is privatized, free association will be a new trend in the Parties.

I'd also like to introduce a new party, assuming the PACT act passes.

It will be called the Republican Party of Libertatem. It will be run on the basis of economic and social conservitavism. To keep it short, we are for God, guns, and keeping our own money.

don't worry, i'll elaborate more later, but that sums it up nice and quick.

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests’, I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

- Sen. Barry Goldwater. These golden words are just as true today as they were when he spoke them.

too bad he lost his election. he sounds like he would have been a good president.

Instead, we got LB-fricking-J.

Post self-deleted by Rebelland.

His tactics in Vietnam were embarrasingly bad.

Vietnam was neither our problem or responsibility. Why did we fight and die for and in another country, and destroy it's cities (or, in the Vietnam case, villages)?

More importantly, what importance was Vietnam? We could have fought in much, much more meaningful civil wars....

It was part of our Cold War containment strategy to defeat the communists. We knew we couldn't take the USSR directly because it could escalate into a nuclear exchange, so we fought a bunch of small scale proxy wars. I for one support the initial purpose of Vietnam and Korea, but not the tactics we employed and certainly not the length of time it took. Fortunately, we have adjusted our tactics. After détente, Reagan just spent a bunch of money on military stuff and the contracting socialist economy of the USSR could not sustain itself as a world power (by the time Reagan had increased military spending, the USSR was spending about 50% of its GDP on war, with us only spending about 5%...gotta love the power of a capitalist economy).

What Liberosia said. Vietnam was of key importance to the United States, as it was a possibility that if Vietnam fell to communism, so would the rest of South-East Asia.

A key failure in Vietnam was the fact that America didn't know who they were fighting. They supported an upper-class Christian dictator who oppressed people of different religions, particualrly Buddhists. They went in the war expecting an easy win with usual American tactics. But instead, they met an enemy who was not only fighting a cause they fanatically believed in, but one that had extensive knowledge of the country's terrain. America responded to their guerrilla warfare tactics by bombing the sh!t out of Vietnamese jungles. This not only destroyed nearby villages but killed thousands of innocents. How could the US win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese when they were killing their people?

It's also a shame that bombing wasn't used more. When Nixon decided to keep bombing North Vietnam until they agreed to a peace treaty, it was creating real results on the battlefield.

Poor Nixon was subject to communist propaganda. If the Western Media wouldn't have had communist-sympathies, the US would have won the Vietnam war.

Well, yes.

Or, we could have fought a meaningful battle or no battle at all.

Why didn't we stand up in....Cuba...or......East Germany....or west German Nazi and Communist terrorism? Or, Mexico's leaning-commienism and suppression of religion (Cristeros War and other events)?

Well, we sort of did in Cuba. We had half of Germany and we could confront the Commies in Russia directly. I guess we could have done Something south of the border.

PACT Act finally at vote? My four puppets in the region and this nation (which makes 5) vote aye.

Also, the Lonestar Party will be refounded as the Minarchist Party. I do realize the name could mean a bunch of different things, but it's short and to the point.

Well im in the party and I am for it.

Hello! I am new to the game and this looked like it was a good region to start with! Can I get a quick overview of what this region is all about?

It's a region for those who believe in limited government, freedom and the destruction of communism.

Great! Thats exactly what I was looking for

Yeah, CP. Aside from the name it will pretty much stand for the same stuff.

Hi, Hanayo. If you want to spit in the faces of monarchs, dictators, and very-left-leaning scholars, you're in the right place. For liberty!

I vote aye for the PACT Act.

I vote yea for the PACT act.

What is this PACT Act all about?

I have read it. Can anyone vote?

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.