Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

*puts on merv's rare serious face*

So this is an interesting election outcome (and not just because I missed the entirety of it by accident!) TNUS I can definitely trust due to past experiences with him. Miri Islands is still new, but I am confident they can do well. Tupolite I have mixed feelings about, feelings that extend past ideology. I don't think Tupolite had ever held citizenship, despite longterm residency in the region. Furthermore, I think it would be wise to bring to light Tupolite's involvement in other regions (including enemy fascist ones) before entrusting him with such a high position in government.

I am also curious to what extent the new government will be pursuing the "War on Communism." I say this because previous efforts to reignite the war have failed, either due to lack of activity on our part or incompetence of the organizers. Though if the government is serious about this war, then I can give any advice that I am legally allowed to give as a previous President and Military General.

Pevvania, Narland, The New United States, Auxorii, Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Upon much thought and conversations with citizens, I have proudly decided to relaunch the Reform Party officially.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1325864

I look forward to the successes of the future; as well as forming relationships with those across all the political spectrum.

Jadentopian Order, Tupolite, Kongeriget Island

Thank you citizens of libertatem for re-electing me to the position of third consul, I know the position of third consul possesses alot of power so I want to reassure all voters that I will serve the region impatially and to the best of my ability. Thank you and good night

Narland, Rateria, Skaveria, Tupolite

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Yeah, let's just keep playing the broken record.

They’re good ideas, and people can judge for themselves.

Tupolite

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Yeah, let's just keep playing the broken record.

Oh just shut up

Auxorii wrote:Upon much thought and conversations with citizens, I have proudly decided to relaunch the Reform Party officially.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1325864

I look forward to the successes of the future; as well as forming relationships with those across all the political spectrum.

You need to update the government seats. There aren't five consuls and there aren't two Reform Party members occupying them.

Miencraft

Skaveria wrote:You need to update the government seats. There aren't five consuls and there aren't two Reform Party members occupying them.

I counted all seats of government including regional justice and yes, there are.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:There's are four positions in government. And I think its stupid to list one of them.

Everyone seems dead set on broken records with Reformation and Reaganist Libertarian (I mean National Libertarian) Parties...

My party is better anyways.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1253097

Your party doesn’t offer a single policy or idea for the region lol; just philosophical ranting.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I think our policies are explained fairly well:

• The State has no business enforcing purity in thought whatsoever, and our party will oppose it.

• We want to see the government structure changed to see a three branched government with clear separation of power. (An executive, legislative, and judicial branch)

The Reformation party is just a controversial zombie. Could have chosen a name that wasn't the exact same as before.

(I never finished the party dispatch though, so thanks for reminding me.)

Those are pretty vague ideas. The Reform (never Reformation) Party actually offers detailed and realistic ideas to reform the Consulate; including how to actually divide the branches of government instead of just talking about it.

Kongeriget Island

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:The Reformation party should wait patiently for the said dispatch to be updated.

Why continuously call it by the wrong name?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Auxorii wrote:Why continuously call it by the wrong name?

Because he's a jerk

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:What?

It’s not the Reformation Party. It’s the Reform Party. Never has it been called the “Reformation” Party.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Well, that's a big fat lie, as I just did it repeatedly.

So now not only are you a potato and a terrorist, you're a liar too. How does that feel?

Cringing. That’s how I feel.

Kongeriget Island

Congratulations to all winners of the Consul elections, and thank you to all participants for helping keep our system vibrant. I'm looking forward to the changes we're about to see!

The New United States, Auxorii, Rateria, Miri Islands, Kongeriget Island

Auxorii wrote:I support free markets- but it’s ridiculous to wage war on an ideology. Millions upon millions of people have also been enslaved under capitalism and have had their nations pillaged and destroyed by capitalists. Sure, it’s a perversion of what we think of as free market capitalism today, but there’s no denial that in history millions have been enslaved and have died due to capitalism and the greed that inevitably is found within the system.

Even if you’re gonna claim that that wasn’t a pure capitalist system, that’s just the equivalent of what the commies say about their system.

Instead of “waging war on communism” like it’s 1952, why don’t we live the libertarian principles we claim to espouse like freedom of thought?

I think that's a false equivalency rooted in semantics. When people refer to the millions of deaths at the hands of Communism, we mean either socialist states or socialist economic systems. We can literally say these systems are the killers of people, because even setting aside mass executions, gulags, etc, having the state in charge of the distribution of resources has led to poverty, famine, starvation and so forth. They are the arbiters of the economy so we can directly attribute the deaths to them.

You can't really say the same thing about capitalism. Capitalism as a system, or rather as a force, cannot 'kill' people. Voluntary exchange can't kill anyone, unless you're counting self-inflicted deaths such as drug overdoses. But then really that's the drugs killing them, or the people themselves doing it. Perhaps slavery and criminal gangs can be considered externalities of capitalism, except the former has almost always been heavily orchestrated by the state all over the world, and both involve violence and coercion, which is the antithesis of capitalism. As Milton Friedman said, no exchange takes place in a capitalist system unless it benefits both parties.

Have capitalist regimes 'killed people'? Yes, governments espousing capitalist ideology have certainly killed people before, such as Chile or the good old USA. But that is not capitalism killing people, those are states killing people.

So yeah, TL;DR, it's a false equivalency.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States

And the most greedy ideology is the socialist doctrine, because it empowers state planners and collectivists to seize the money of others for their own benefits. The 'greed' of capitalism, when regulated by strong private property protections and judicial systems, has caused the alleviation of billions out of squalor due to people pursuing their own self-interest.

Miencraft, The New United States, Skaveria, Kongeriget Island

Pevvania wrote:I think that's a false equivalency rooted in semantics. When people refer to the millions of deaths at the hands of Communism, we mean either socialist states or socialist economic systems. We can literally say these systems are the killers of people, because even setting aside mass executions, gulags, etc, having the state in charge of the distribution of resources has led to poverty, famine, starvation and so forth. They are the arbiters of the economy so we can directly attribute the deaths to them.

You can't really say the same thing about capitalism. Capitalism as a system, or rather as a force, cannot 'kill' people. Voluntary exchange can't kill anyone, unless you're counting self-inflicted deaths such as drug overdoses. But then really that's the drugs killing them, or the people themselves doing it. Perhaps slavery and criminal gangs can be considered externalities of capitalism, except the former has almost always been heavily orchestrated by the state all over the world, and both involve violence and coercion, which is the antithesis of capitalism. As Milton Friedman said, no exchange takes place in a capitalist system unless it benefits both parties.

Have capitalist regimes 'killed people'? Yes, governments espousing capitalist ideology have certainly killed people before, such as Chile or the good old USA. But that is not capitalism killing people, those are states killing people.

So yeah, TL;DR, it's a false equivalency.

Ohhh okay I see, so when states do it in the name of communism, then it’s communism’s fault... but when it’s a state doing it in the name of capitalism, it’s just “the state”. Got it.

You realize millions have been enslaved and died for the pursuit of “Voluntary exchange“. Yes, it could even be a “voluntary exchange” of pillaged goods or slaves.

It’s really not hard to see that you’re clearly holding a double standard.

Rateria

Auxorii wrote:Ohhh okay I see, so when states do it in the name of communism, then it’s communism’s fault... but when it’s a state doing it in the name of capitalism, it’s just “the state”. Got it.

Actually, yes. Exactly.

Auxorii wrote:You realize millions have been enslaved and died for the pursuit of “Voluntary exchange“. Yes, it could even be a “voluntary exchange” of pillaged goods or slaves.

It’s really not hard to see that you’re clearly holding a double standard.

It's not a voluntary excahnge when it involves coercion. The slaves themselves were falsely imprisoned and treated as the property of others. Under real capitalism, every individual is able to exercise their self-ownership, which enables markets to function. Slaves are usually not asked if they want to be bought and sold.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States

Even if we stack up 'capitalist regimes' next to communist regimes in terms of numbers of people killed under each, I'm fairly confident the Communist regimes have murdered more people. But then we're welding into the realm of the arbitrary. Are drug overdoses the result of capitalism? Deaths by obesity? What about car accidents, the result of vehicles produced on an assembly line? To say that capitalism 'kills' people is a losing argument that concedes far too much to the leftists, and depending on your definition you could say that literally billions of people have been killed by capitalism.

Miencraft, The New United States, Kongeriget Island

Really, I think capitalism is so often misnomered and misidentified. I don't even think it's a 'system' in the traditional sense, I just see capitalism as life, just human beings doing what they would naturally be doing without coercion or violence. If capitalism has killed people, then that's humans that have killed people.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Kongeriget Island

Pevvania wrote:Even if we stack up 'capitalist regimes' next to communist regimes in terms of numbers of people killed under each, I'm fairly confident the Communist regimes have murdered more people. But then we're welding into the realm of the arbitrary. Are drug overdoses the result of capitalism? Deaths by obesity? What about car accidents, the result of vehicles produced on an assembly line? To say that capitalism 'kills' people is a losing argument that concedes far too much to the leftists, and depending on your definition you could say that literally billions of people have been killed by capitalism.

I just have to note that capitalism is the only system where the poor die from obesity

Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland, The New United States

Pevvania wrote:Actually, yes. Exactly.

It's not a voluntary excahnge when it involves coercion. The slaves themselves were falsely imprisoned and treated as the property of others. Under real capitalism, every individual is able to exercise their self-ownership, which enables markets to function. Slaves are usually not asked if they want to be bought and sold.

Lmao, exactly my point:

Auxorii wrote:Even if you’re gonna claim that that wasn’t a pure capitalist system, that’s just the equivalent of what the commies say about their system.

Rateria

Auxorii wrote:Lmao, exactly my point:

Ok, sure, you can say I'm just giving a right-wing version of "it wasn't real communism", but you haven't really refuted my point.

Narland

Kongeriget Island wrote:What's your work if I may ask

Tupolite wrote:He's an insurance claims adjuster or something.

watlol

I'm a regional manager for a company that makes parts for commercial vehicles.

Narland, The New United States, Rateria, Tupolite, Kongeriget Island

Pevvania wrote:Really, I think capitalism is so often misnomered and misidentified. I don't even think it's a 'system' in the traditional sense, I just see capitalism as life, just human beings doing what they would naturally be doing without coercion or violence. If capitalism has killed people, then that's humans that have killed people.

Humans need words written on paper telling them what they shouldn't do or things would get all stabby and perverted.

Narland, The New United States, Auxorii, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Ok, sure, you can say I'm just giving a right-wing version of "it wasn't real communism", but you haven't really refuted my point.

It is literally that. Every example I’ve given you just respond “well that’s not the version of capitalism I subscribe to”. I don’t think you realize that the whole concept of “voluntary exchange” in capitalism has historically been very exploitive. This is just a fact.

During the potato famine, the British government refused aid to Ireland because “the market will solve the crisis”. It was the ideology of capitalism and “voluntary exchange” that led to the philosophy of just ‘letting it be’.

You just glaze over the hundred of years of history where within capitalism millions have been excluded from the “voluntary exchange”; and yes, obviously this comes from a capitalist state. I could give the same meaningless sentiment you do about how, “well communism is just the workers controlling the means of production”. Of course it is the faults of the state, whether they were communist OR capitalist. Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

It’s completely stupid and a double standard how you say “it’s impossible for capitalism to kill because it’s just a force and ideology, it’s capitalist states” when you can literally just say the same thing for communism.

Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Tupolite

Muh Roads wrote:watlol

I'm a regional manager for a company that makes parts for commercial vehicles.

Sounds like good job security.

Muh Roads wrote:Humans need words written on paper telling them what they shouldn't do or things would get all stabby and perverted.

What is this thing called paper you speak of?

The New United States, Rateria

Auxorii wrote: During the potato famine, the British government refused aid to Ireland because “the market will solve the crisis”. It was the ideology of capitalism and “voluntary exchange” that led to the philosophy of just ‘letting it be’.

I don't know enough about the Potato Famine to argue those points. However, I will say that if you think you're going to find any human system that's going to alleviate all human suffering forever and ever, then you will never be satisfied. The state of natural of man is grinding poverty, and we must look for that economic arrangement that best enables man to rise from that low state.

As Pev said, "capitalism" is the lack of an organized, top-down economic system. It is voluntary exchange without restraint, and there has been no better force in the history of the world in saving people from poverty, starvation, illness, etc.

There will inevitably be people that die in a capitalist system, but not for any systematic failure in capitalism itself. That is unlike communism, in which the ideology is so flawed that any attempt at implementing it invariably results in failed planning, shortages, starvation, etc.

Any death that you attribute to "capitalism" is really a death to statism, which is the enemy all the same as moronic economic ideologies like communism.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland, Kongeriget Island

Narland wrote: What is this thing called paper you speak of?

It's this stuff that looks like skin that stupid nerds draw their dumb ideas on.

Muh Roads

Auxorii wrote:

During the potato famine, the British government refused aid to Ireland because “the market will solve the crisis”. It was the ideology of capitalism and “voluntary exchange” that led to the philosophy of just ‘letting it be’.

.

What? The Irish potato famine was exacerbated by the English government interfering with the Irish economy. The biggest problem was Ireland wasn't able to afford the food. You might say that's a failure of capitalism but that is wrong. The food prices were high because the English refused to allow Ireland to import dirt cheap food from the United States instead forcing Ireland to buy the much more expensive food imported from the English. Because Ireland's economy was restricted by England, food prices soared way beyond the world market value. If Ireland was allowed to import cheap American food like the rest of the continent the effects of the famine wouldn't have been nearly as severe

Miencraft, Pevvania, The New United States

The New United States wrote:I don't know enough about the Potato Famine to argue those points. However, I will say that if you think you're going to find any human system that's going to alleviate all human suffering forever and ever, then you will never be satisfied. The state of natural of man is grinding poverty, and we must look for that economic arrangement that best enables man to rise from that low state.

As Pev said, "capitalism" is the lack of an organized, top-down economic system. It is voluntary exchange without restraint, and there has been no better force in the history of the world in saving people from poverty, starvation, illness, etc.

There will inevitably be people that die in a capitalist system, but not for any systematic failure in capitalism itself. That is unlike communism, in which the ideology is so flawed that any attempt at implementing it invariably results in failed planning, shortages, starvation, etc.

Any death that you attribute to "capitalism" is really a death to statism, which is the enemy all the same as moronic economic ideologies like communism.

I didn’t say any system was perfect. I was pointing out that like communism, you could have the same “war on capitalism” for all the same reasons you could have a war on communism.

Of course, I prefer capitalism over communism. I was never debating the two or even comparing them; I was just saying that it’s pointless to attack an ideology.

Miri Islands wrote:What? The Irish potato famine was exacerbated by the English government interfering with the Irish economy. The biggest problem was Ireland wasn't able to afford the food. You might say that's a failure of capitalism but that is wrong. The food prices were high because the English refused to allow Ireland to import dirt cheap food from the United States instead forcing Ireland to buy the much more expensive food imported from the English. Because Ireland's economy was restricted by England, food prices soared way beyond the world market value. If Ireland was allowed to import cheap American food like the rest of the continent the effects of the famine wouldn't have been nearly as severe

No.

The Irish potato famine was caused by private land owners hoarding food that was being imported to the U.K for more profit.

The biggest issue was not “Ireland could not afford food”, that literally provides no reason for a famine; you’re just describing what the famine is. The famine was caused by centuries of British oppression and imperialism in Ireland. Native Gaelic Catholics were prohibited from owning land, and with wealthy English owning all the land (and thus their resources), they promptly exported all the food they produced to the U.K and other nations in order to make a profit; careless of the starving Irish.

You clearly do not know anything about this topic, and I suggest you do some research before making a fool of yourself talking about something of such great importance.

When nations like Turkey tried to send relief to Ireland, they were rejected by Queen Victoria and the British government, who used the argument that by aiding the poor Irish, you would simply cause them to be even more dependent on the British (ignoring the clear irony of all of this), the excuse the British wanted to keep the budget balanced and that “the hand of the market” would handle the crisis.

Of course, there was the obvious racism and discrimination that were the main driving force of the Famine. But if you’re seriously going to tell me capitalism had nothing to do with the potato famine then you clearly have not looked into the subject in the slightest.

Narland, Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Well, that's a big fat lie, as I just did it repeatedly.

So now not only are you a potato and a terrorist, you're a liar too. How does that feel?

Condescending people and arguing in bad faith isn't making you look any better than Aux

Kongeriget Island

Auxorii wrote:It is literally that. Every example I’ve given you just respond “well that’s not the version of capitalism I subscribe to”. I don’t think you realize that the whole concept of “voluntary exchange” in capitalism has historically been very exploitive. This is just a fact.

During the potato famine, the British government refused aid to Ireland because “the market will solve the crisis”. It was the ideology of capitalism and “voluntary exchange” that led to the philosophy of just ‘letting it be’.

You just glaze over the hundred of years of history where within capitalism millions have been excluded from the “voluntary exchange”; and yes, obviously this comes from a capitalist state. I could give the same meaningless sentiment you do about how, “well communism is just the workers controlling the means of production”. Of course it is the faults of the state, whether they were communist OR capitalist. Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

It’s completely stupid and a double standard how you say “it’s impossible for capitalism to kill because it’s just a force and ideology, it’s capitalist states” when you can literally just say the same thing for communism.

The problem I have with the term "Capitalism" is that it was coined by Marx whose philosophical mindset was diabolical to say the least. He used the term as a foil for his ideology. Nevertheless, we are stuck with the terminology and must make do.

I prefer terms like Natural Economy, Physical Ecology, Free Market Enterprise, Open Market Enterprise, etc. If I have to use the term Capitalism, it is predicated on a "free and morally responsible people serving each other in free and open markets to each persons mutual satisfaction in the pursuit of happiness (self-interest)." Anything else is a perversion.

The Corn Laws had nothing to do with free-enterprise and everything to do with Statist exploitation of commerce. They were unjust, inequitable, and arbitrary. Had the British state allowed the Irish to exercise their rights, privileges, and immunities as proper subjects of the Crown (with their life, liberty, property, and pursuits intact), a century and a half of pain and suffering (not to mention the untold deaths) could have been avoided.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Miri Islands, Kongeriget Island

Narland wrote:The Corn Laws had nothing to do with free-enterprise and everything to do with Statist exploitation. They were unjust, inequitable, and arbitrary. Had the British state allowed the Irish to exercise their rights, privileges, and immunities as proper subjects of the Crown (with their life, liberty, property, and pursuits intact), a century and a half of pain and suffering (not to mention the untold deaths) could have been avoided.

It’s not just about the Corn Laws; those had been in place since 1815 and when repealed did little to help curve the starvation. Why don’t you look up the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834?

Auxorii wrote:It’s not just about the Corn Laws; those had been in place since 1815 and when repealed did little to help curve the starvation. Why don’t you look up the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834?

Let me rephrase: The occupation of Ireland by the British Crown and unjust laws such as the Corn Laws had nothing to do with free-enterprise.

I am familiar with the sad affair. One of my forebears was an expatriot republican from Cork on one side (whom I knew), and on another other side are a line of British parliamentarians. I felt the need to research and understand what happened and why during my schooldays. I became more convinced that power corrupts (bends people to the system), and that Objective Realism, Classical Lberalism, and Free-Market Economics are naturally beneficent, morally just, and Biblically sound.

Pevvania

Narland wrote:Let me rephrase: The occupation of Ireland by the British Crown and unjust laws such as the Corn Laws had nothing to do with free-enterprise.

I never said it did. In fact, I stated that racism was a bigger driving force for the famine.

I said that the Whig British government refused to aid the starving Irish because they believed in free-enterprise. This is a historical fact.

Auxorii wrote:I never said it did. In fact, I stated that racism was a bigger driving force for the famine.

I said that the Whig British government refused to aid the starving Irish because they believed in free-enterprise. This is a historical fact.

The point is that people say one thing and do the other all the time. The Whigs were in the wrong, and gave rise to the Conservatives. They only believed in a so-called free enterprise that was free enough to pay off their fiduciary interests and entrprising enough to deprive others of their freedom --thus refuting their claim that they were engaging in free-enterprise. That is the historical reality.

Pevvania

Narland wrote:The point is that people say one thing and do the other all the time. The Whigs were in the wrong, and gave rise to the Conservatives. They only believed in a so-called free enterprise that was free enough to pay off their fiduciary interests and entrprising enough to deprive others of their freedom --thus refuting their claim that they were engaging in free-enterprise. That is the historical reality.

I don’t agree with the Whigs or think that their policies were correct or consistent.

The British government refused to aid Ireland because they thought that free-enterprise would solve the crisis. Regardless of however much you don’t like their version of free-enterprise doesn’t mean that millions haven’t been enslaved, starved and killed in the name of capitalism. That’s the historical fact.

Rateria

Auxorii wrote:

The Irish potato famine was caused by private land owners hoarding food that was being imported to the U.K for more profit.

This is partially true, this is why Ireland became quite dependant on the potato. Irish tenant farmers grew oats and barley for export to the UK because they were very profitable and paid the rent. The potatoes were cheap and nutritious and provided the food needed to survive. When the potato famine hit these families weren't able to sustain themselves without the cheap easy to grow potatoes so they were eating grain and other things they grew, many tenants didn't meet their rents because the grains and barley were the profitable things they were growing and they were evicted causing mass unemployment. Cheap foreign food would have minimized the problem however the UK prevented imports instead insisting Ireland import solely from the UK.

Auxorii wrote:

The biggest issue was not “Ireland could not afford food”, that literally provides no reason for a famine; you’re just describing what the famine is. The famine was caused by centuries of British oppression and imperialism in Ireland. Native Gaelic Catholics were prohibited from owning land, and with wealthy English owning all the land (and thus their resources), they promptly exported all the food they produced to the U.K and other nations in order to make a profit; careless of the starving Irish.

The famine was a domino effect of different factors that were started with the potato blight. In a free market merchants would have imported cheap American food that would help make up for the heavily inflated price of food and make farming the cash crops and feeding oneself a possibility for Irish tenant farmers. In the second part what you described was imperialism and government interference with the economy not capitalism. Thank you for helping argue my point.

Auxorii wrote:

You clearly do not know anything about this topic, and I suggest you do some research before making a fool of yourself talking about something of such great importance.

Holy projection Batman!

Auxorii wrote:

When nations like Turkey tried to send relief to Ireland, they were rejected by Queen Victoria and the British government, who used the argument that by aiding the poor Irish, you would simply cause them to be even more dependent on the British (ignoring the clear irony of all of this), the excuse the British wanted to keep the budget balanced and that “the hand of the market” would handle the crisis.

Yet another example of the British interfering with the economy and you blaming it on capitalism.

Auxorii wrote:

Of course, there was the obvious racism and discrimination that were the main driving force of the Famine. But if you’re seriously going to tell me capitalism had nothing to do with the potato famine then you clearly have not looked into the subject in the slightest.

Everything you said was the fault of capitalism was actually the fault of British imperialism. The British idea of a 'free market' was allowing Ireland to import expensive British food.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland

Auxorii wrote:I don’t agree with the Whigs or think that their policies are correct or consistent.

The British government refused to aid Ireland because they thought that free-enterprise would solve the crisis. Regardless of however much you don’t like their version of free-enterprise doesn’t mean that millions haven’t been enslaved, starved and killed in the name of capitalism. That’s the historical fact.

I am not disagreeing with what they said. My point is: One cannot exert an exploitative state that deprives its subjects of their rights, and then claim to have free-enterprise. It is oxymoronic. They were either lying or they were inbred imbeciles, probably both.

***Reposted from earlier: ***

The problem I have with the term "Capitalism" is that it was coined by Marx whose philosophical mindset was diabolical to say the least. He used the term as a foil for his ideology. Nevertheless, we are stuck with the terminology and must make do.

I prefer terms like Natural Economy, Physical Ecology, Free Market Enterprise, Open Market Enterprise, etc. If I have to use the term Capitalism, it is predicated on a "free and morally responsible people serving each other in free and open markets to each persons mutual satisfaction in the pursuit of happiness (self-interest)." Anything else is a perversion.

Pevvania, Rateria

The mass starvations under communism were actually the fault of capitalism because Western capitalists thought the East could work out their own problems and thus didn't give them enough aid.

Pevvania, Kongeriget Island

Narland wrote:I am not disagreeing with what they said. My point is: One cannot exert an exploitative state that deprives their subjects of their rights, and then claim to have free-enterprise. It is oxymoronic. They were either lying or they were inbred imbeciles, probably both.

***Reposted from earlier: ***

The problem I have with the term "Capitalism" is that it was coined by Marx whose philosophical mindset was diabolical to say the least. He used the term as a foil for his ideology. Nevertheless, we are stuck with the terminology and must make do.

I prefer terms like Natural Economy, Physical Ecology, Free Market Enterprise, Open Market Enterprise, etc. If I have to use the term Capitalism, it is predicated on a "free and morally responsible people serving each other in free and open markets to each persons mutual satisfaction in the pursuit of happiness (self-interest)." Anything else is a perversion.

Again, this is the exact same kind of arguments that come from Communists when confronted with “communism has caused the deaths millions of millions.” and their response is “well, it wasn’t REAL communism”.

Miri Islands wrote:This is partially true, this is why Ireland became quite dependant on the potato. Irish tenant farmers grew oats and barley for export to the UK because they were very profitable and paid the rent.

This sentence alone shows you have no idea what you’re talking about.

There's a qualitative distinction between killing someone and allowing them to die.

The New United States wrote:The mass starvations under communism were actually the fault of capitalism because Western capitalists thought the East could work out their own problems and thus didn't give them enough aid.

That’s not even close to being similar... Ireland was literally a colony of the U.K at the time.

Auxorii wrote:That’s not even close to being similar... Ireland was literally a colony of the U.K at the time.

So, the misery in Ireland was more a consequence of political subjugation than it was of free enterprise?

Miencraft, Miri Islands

The New United States wrote:The mass starvations under communism were actually the fault of capitalism because Western capitalists thought the East could work out their own problems and thus didn't give them enough aid.

The amount of aid they needed would have bankrupted us all. One can fix broken (free-enterprise), but one cannot fix stupid (command economy). Throwing good money after bad is a very bad idea. The best idea is to remove Statist impediments to prosperity.

Marxist apologists, such as the Brookings Institute convinced Western Banks and Manufacturers (through organizations like the IMF) to bankroll the Soviet Union's crop failures every year. It only encouraged the Soviet Union to keep doing the same things over and over. Western manufacturers and foundations would go into the Soviet Union and build their infrastructure and factories rather routinely. This was a repeated pattern throughout the Cold War. Had we let them go bankrupt instead of propping them up for 50 years after WW2, the Soviet Union would have self-destructed by Khrushchev's first few years.

Pevvania, The New United States, Miri Islands

Skaveria wrote:There's a qualitative distinction between killing someone and allowing them to die.

If you have the means to prevent a death and you refuse to, you’re still responsible

Rateria

Auxorii wrote:Again, this is the exact same kind of arguments that come from Communists when confronted with “communism has caused the deaths millions of millions.” and their response is “well, it wasn’t REAL communism”.

Either we are talking past each other or we are making the same point in converse.

Communism defines itself as implementation of Socialism (state ownership of the means of production) as an intermediary state. Millions of people die from this because of the unintended consequences of its unrealistic expectations. Communism cannot come to fruition because no "new man" ever rises out of the ashes of societal destruction of the Bourgeoisie wrought by Socialism.

In one sense, it is true that Communism has never been tried because it is a chimera that cannot be. In the most pertinent sense it has been tried persistently (and dogmatically) by inflicting Socialism from the hand of the State on hapless millions. No Marxist utopia ever exudes itself onto the international scene, and it never will.

Free Enterprise on the other hand is predicated on a mature and productive people exchanging goods and services to each other's mutual benefit. If something goes wrong it is not because of the natural order of people helping each other do and be better, it is because someone is violating the natural order through force or fraud. The purpose of the state is not to interfere in the people's business, but to intervene in punishing force and fraud when it is perpetrated. Anything else is a perversion. Thus if people are denied or deprived of their life, liberty, and property it is in spite of Free Enterprise, not because of it.

Miencraft, Pevvania, The New United States, Auxorii, Miri Islands

The New United States wrote:So, the misery in Ireland was more a consequence of political subjugation than it was of free enterprise?

Yes. Obviously. I have stated this twice during this conversation. That doesn’t mean that capitalism didn’t play a role.

Narland wrote:Either we are talking past each other or we are making the same point in converse.

Communism defines itself as implementation of Socialism (state ownership of the means of production) as an intermediary state. Millions of people die from this because of the unintended consequences of its unrealistic expectations. Communism cannot come to fruition because no "new man" ever rises out of the ashes of societal destruction of the Bourgeoisie wrought by Socialism.

In one sense, it is true that Communism has never been tried because it is a chimera that cannot be. In the most pertinent sense it has been tried persistently (and dogmatically) by inflicting Socialism from the hand of the State on hapless millions. No Marxist utopia ever exudes itself onto the international scene, and it never will.

Free Enterprise on the other hand is predicated on a mature and productive people exchanging goods and services to each other's mutual benefit. If something goes wrong it is not because of the natural order of people helping each other do and be better, it is because someone is violating the natural order through force or fraud. The purpose of the state is not to interfere in the people's business, but to intervene in punishing force and fraud when it is perpetrated. Anything else is a perversion. Thus if people are denied or deprived of their life, liberty, and property it is in spite of Free Enterprise, not because of it.

You’re right- we are essentially arguing the same point then and I agree with you. However, my main point in this whole argument is that it’s ridiculous to call for a “war on Communism” when as you can attribute millions of death to the pursuit of free market enterprise; just as millions died under the pursuit of communism by a socialist state.

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:There's a qualitative distinction between killing someone and allowing them to die.

What? Ireland was literally subject to the United Kingdom; it was the responsibility of the British government to provide aid to people they claim to represent. Surely you can’t be that ideologically blind that you see nothing wrong with how the British government handled the Irish famine?

Also, that’s probably the most selfish and disgusting thing I’ve read this week

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Auxorii wrote:What? Ireland was literally subject to the United Kingdom; it was the responsibility of the British government to provide aid to people they claim to represent. Surely you can’t be that ideologically blind that you see nothing wrong with how the British government handled the Irish famine?

Also, that’s probably the most selfish and disgusting thing I’ve read this week

I didn't say it was right. I said there was a qualitative distinction. One requires action, one requires inaction. One cannot violate rights through inaction except in the case of children.

Narland

Skaveria wrote:I didn't say it was right. I said there was a qualitative distinction. One requires action, one requires inaction. One cannot violate rights through inaction except in the case of children.

Not in this context. That distinction is definitely not there when it comes to the relationship of colonized and starving Ireland and the British Empire. It’s not as if the British were some innocent bystander in all of this.

Narland, Rateria

Auxorii wrote:It is literally that. Every example I’ve given you just respond “well that’s not the version of capitalism I subscribe to”. I don’t think you realize that the whole concept of “voluntary exchange” in capitalism has historically been very exploitive. This is just a fact.

The ultimate expression of capitalism is minimal government and maximum freedom for private/market actors. Therefore, the more 'capitalist' a country is, the fewer restrictions it has on voluntary exchange. By this metric, Hong Kong, Singapore and Switzerland are more capitalist than the USA. The more state involvement and state coercion, the less capitalist it is. State capitalism, for example, is the Chinese model, and yes there have been plenty of deaths under it - but deaths caused by the state. The settler-colonial economic model, for example, was impossible without imperial states. None of these are free market systems.

What is your definition of "eploitive"? Marx's definition of exploitation is woefully unsound and ungrounded in facts (especially considering he viciously exploited his maid, and his friend Engels, but that's another topic) and even commonly held definitions miss the mark. For example, we have minimum wage laws because allowing somebody to get paid under Wage X is "exploitation", so we just condemn them to unemployment instead. Care to elaborate, or will you insist on throwing around another fallacy?

Auxorii wrote:You just glaze over the hundred of years of history where within capitalism millions have been excluded from the “voluntary exchange”; and yes, obviously this comes from a capitalist state. I could give the same meaningless sentiment you do about how, “well communism is just the workers controlling the means of production”. Of course it is the faults of the state, whether they were communist OR capitalist. Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

It’s completely stupid and a double standard how you say “it’s impossible for capitalism to kill because it’s just a force and ideology, it’s capitalist states” when you can literally just say the same thing for communism.

Umm because as I said bro capitalism is an economic system, not a political model. That's all well and dandy if "capitalist states" have killed people, but that's a far cry from saying capitalism has killed anyone. You're yet to prove a single one of your claims.

Come to think of it, the Democrat Party started the Civil War. Democracy has killed so many people!!!

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States

Auxorii wrote:I never said it did. In fact, I stated that racism was a bigger driving force for the famine.

I said that the Whig British government refused to aid the starving Irish because they believed in free-enterprise. This is a historical fact.

Wow man settler-colonial protectionism, that's so free market bro, f--k the Koch Brothers capitalism has failed

The New United States

"Capitalism" caused the Irish Potato Famine in the same way that Diet Coke helps people lose weight

Narland, The New United States, Miri Islands

Pevvania wrote:Wow man settler-colonial protectionism, that's so free market bro, f--k the Koch Brothers capitalism has failed

Literally google about the potato famine and the history of how it came to be; I don’t know why this is so hard for you to get through that thick yankee skull.

Pevvania wrote:The ultimate expression of capitalism is minimal government and maximum freedom for private/market actors. Therefore, the more 'capitalist' a country is, the fewer restrictions it has on voluntary exchange. By this metric, Hong Kong, Singapore and Switzerland are more capitalist than the USA. The more state involvement and state coercion, the less capitalist it is. State capitalism, for example, is the Chinese model, and yes there have been plenty of deaths under it - but deaths caused by the state. The settler-colonial economic model, for example, was impossible without imperial states. None of these are free market systems.

What is your definition of "eploitive"? Marx's definition of exploitation is woefully unsound and ungrounded in facts (especially considering he viciously exploited his maid, and his friend Engels, but that's another topic) and even commonly held definitions miss the mark. For example, we have minimum wage laws because allowing somebody to get paid under Wage X is "exploitation", so we just condemn them to unemployment instead. Care to elaborate, or will you insist on throwing around another fallacy?

Umm because as I said bro capitalism is an economic system, not a political model. That's all well and dandy if "capitalist states" have killed people, but that's a far cry from saying capitalism has killed anyone. You're yet to prove a single one of your claims.

Come to think of it, the Democrat Party started the Civil War. Democracy has killed so many people!!!

Dude... not the same... the British Parliament literally refused to do their job because they said free markets would take care of it.

Pevvania wrote:"Capitalism" caused the Irish Potato Famine in the same way that Diet Coke helps people lose weight

You keep saying that capitalism is just some simple natural order of equal value transactions... if you’re going to define it like that we might as well define communism as a “stateless, classless society”; which in that case, none of the policies that Socialist states have enforced have fell in line with that... where is the difference?

Rateria

Attention citizens of Libertatem!

We are in the re-building phase of the Military and Intelligence Corps and the Diplomatic Corps, and we need a few good patriots to volunteer just a few minutes a week to the cause!

Time commitment will be light, but you will have the opportunity to enhance Libertatem's place on the world stage, make friends in allied regions, and contribute to the defense of freedom in the face of the communist left.

If you are at all interested in volunteering for the effort, whether in a military/intelligence capacity or a diplomatic one, please telegram me and we can discuss the details!

In liberty,

[nation=short]The New United States[/nation]

Pevvania, Narland, Rateria, Skaveria, Kongeriget Island

Auxorii wrote:Literally google about the potato famine and the history of how it came to be; I don’t know why this is so hard for you to get through that thick yankee skull. Dude... not the same... the British Parliament literally refused to do their job because they said free markets would take care of it.

Don't worry I am 1/16th Irish, I have personal investment in this subject too.

Sorry but please explain to me how a colonial power blocking food imports and setting price floors for food is 'free market'?

The New United States, Rateria, Miri Islands

Auxorii wrote:You keep saying that capitalism is just some simple natural order of equal value transactions... if you’re going to define it like that we might as well define communism as a “stateless, classless society”; which in that case, none of the policies that Socialist states have enforced have fell in line with that... where is the difference?

We say 'Communism' and 'Communist regimes' as shorthand for regimes aiming for Communism, but you and I both know we're really referring to state socialism. Yes, they weren't technically in the stage of communism, but nevertheless almost every capital-C Communist state has fit what both Marx and Lenin described as the "vanguard state" or "dictatorship of the proletariat". Unlike what far-leftists would tell you, they did "follow the manual" and caused millions of deaths as a result. The same cannot be said for colonial empires and corporatist states.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Kongeriget Island

Socailist economic systems are indistinguishable from socialist states, the same cannot be said about capitalist economic systems and 'capitalist states'.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Kongeriget Island

Pevvania wrote:Don't worry I am 1/16th Irish, I have personal investment in this subject too.

Sorry but please explain to me how a colonial power blocking food imports and setting price floors for food is 'free market'?

Because you clearly don’t even know what happened. It was a crisis that took decades to build up and was never actually properly managed by the British government for the sake of hoping the market will fix it; also, obviously it wasn’t a pure free market system. No capitalist system has ever been and throughout history, capitalist countries have not had complete free markets; but have instead been massively imperialist and building their prosperity off of the back of people that they didn’t want to include in your “free” market. You’re literally proving my point the more you talk-it’s pointless to claim an ideology is responsible for anything when it’s clearly the states that implement those systems in individual ways unique from every other system are the ones to blame.

Rateria

The New United States wrote:Attention citizens of Libertatem!

Oh, and Mien too. And whoever else that's loyal but just refuses citizenship.

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:

they did "follow the manual" and caused millions of deaths as a result. The same cannot be said for colonial empires and corporatist states.

Seriously? Colonial empires never caused the deaths of millions as a result of their conquest?

Bruh

The New United States wrote:Attention citizens of Libertatem!

We are in the re-building phase of the Military and Intelligence Corps and the Diplomatic Corps, and we need a few good patriots to volunteer just a few minutes a week to the cause!

Time commitment will be light, but you will have the opportunity to enhance Libertatem's place on the world stage, make friends in allied regions, and contribute to the defense of freedom in the face of the communist left.

If you are at all interested in volunteering for the effort, whether in a military/intelligence capacity or a diplomatic one, please telegram me and we can discuss the details!

In liberty,

[nation=short]The New United States[/nation]

Oh, intelligence corps? That sounds like a good idea. Who came up with that one?

Auxorii wrote:Seriously? Colonial empires never caused the deaths of millions as a result of their conquest?

Bruh

What I meant was that colonial empires did not adhere to free market economic systems. They did to some extent for their home countries, sure, but you can't tell me that the peoople of the Congo Free State or any other colony enjoyed some kind of capitalist utopia. As another example, the American Revolution was fought in reaction to Britain's heavy-handed economic interventionism.

Auxorii wrote:Because you clearly don’t even know what happened. It was a crisis that took decades to build up and was never actually properly managed by the British government for the sake of hoping the market will fix it; also, obviously it wasn’t a pure free market system. No capitalist system has ever been and throughout history, capitalist countries have not had complete free markets; but have instead been massively imperialist and building their prosperity off of the back of people that they didn’t want to include in your “free” market. You’re literally proving my point the more you talk-it’s pointless to claim an ideology is responsible for anything when it’s clearly the states that implement those systems in individual ways unique from every other system are the ones to blame.

Well, to be honest, there's a lot of evidence that the famine was a hoax/over-exaggerated.

Post self-deleted by The New United States.

Auxorii wrote:Oh, intelligence corps? That sounds like a good idea. Who came up with that one?

What are you getting at?

Pevvania wrote:Well, to be honest, there's a lot of evidence that the famine was a hoax/over-exaggerated.

What?

The New United States wrote:What are you getting at?

Your first deleted post and this response clearly shows what I’m getting at lmao

Auxorii wrote:What?

It's another hoax to make the British Empire look "evil", like the so-called Bengali Famine. It's just like how the Spanish Inquisition has been exaggerated to make the Spaniards look bad. In reality, very few people died in the 'famine', if there even was a famine. Look at Ireland today - very successful economy. That's because of British help.

The New United States

Auxorii wrote:Your first deleted post and this response clearly shows what I’m getting at lmao

My deleted post was in response to one of your points in the argument regarding the Potato Famine, but I saw after posting it that it was essentially repetitive of a response that was made before I posted it, so I deleted it.

Miri Islands

So, no, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Pevvania wrote:It's another hoax to make the British Empire look "evil", like the so-called Bengali Famine. It's just like how the Spanish Inquisition has been exaggerated to make the Spaniards look bad. In reality, very few people died in the 'famine', if there even was a famine. Look at Ireland today - very successful economy. That's because of British help.

And their relatively free market, of course!

https://www.heritage.org/index/country/ireland

Pevvania

The New United States wrote:And their relatively free market, of course!

https://www.heritage.org/index/country/ireland

Ireland benefited immeasurably from British colonial rule. It was taken from the swamps, the gutter, and turned into the proud nation it is today. Even if a few people died, isn't it worth the status it enjoys today?

The New United States

Also, you can't be "racist" against the Irish because the Irish are white. They were just less civilized, but we fixed that.

The New United States

Pevvania wrote:Ireland benefited immeasurably from British colonial rule. It was taken from the swamps, the gutter, and turned into the proud nation it is today. Even if a few people died, isn't it worth the status it enjoys today?

So true. British colonial rule has a quite impressive record of civilizing peoples and massively improving their living standards.

I honestly do shudder to think what Ireland or India or any other number of places would be like without the benevolent rule of the Crown.

Pevvania, Kongeriget Island

Pevvania wrote:It's another hoax to make the British Empire look "evil", like the so-called Bengali Famine. It's just like how the Spanish Inquisition has been exaggerated to make the Spaniards look bad. In reality, very few people died in the 'famine', if there even was a famine. Look at Ireland today - very successful economy. That's because of British help.

Ireland’s economy is successful today because of the E.U lmao

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Also, you can't be "racist" against the Irish because the Irish are white. They were just less civilized, but we fixed that.

Honestly, they still need a bit of work. I don't know of any other Western European countries that are as disorderly and with such terroristic tendencies. Might be that they got independence a bit too early.

Pevvania

Auxorii wrote:Ireland’s economy is successful today because of the E.U lmao

Nope. Britain built the roads, got rid of the riff-raff, and toned down their tribal behaviors. We also took care of their native "languages" and helped integrate them into the global economy with English. But as TNUS said, we probably still have a bit of work to do on them.

The New United States

Even if the Famine did happen, even assuming that 25% of the population was "wiped out" (which didn't happen but let's just assume), they had nobody to blame but themselves. They should have implemented better farming practices and been more efficient. I'm not saying they deserved it, but... well, we had to deal with the IRA, so let's call it even.

The New United States

And Americans really wonder why the rest of the world hates them...

Auxorii wrote:And Americans really wonder why the rest of the world hates them...

I'm not American

The New United States

Auxorii wrote:And Americans really wonder why the rest of the world hates them...

Is it because we don't fake potato famines or lose our wars of Independence?

Miencraft, Pevvania

The New United States wrote:Is it because we don't fake potato famines or lose our wars of Independence?

Why are you even saying these things? Why not argue my points instead of just insulting my heritage?

It’d make you look a lot smarter.

Rateria, Kongeriget Island

Auxorii wrote:Why are you even saying these things? Why not argue my points instead of just insulting my heritage?

It’d make you look a lot smarter.

I'm 1/16th Irish, so I can say that the British did a good job over there. That's on record

The New United States

Why does Aux condemn the British Empire, but not Irish militants and Irish-on-Irish crime? The silence is deafening.

The New United States

Auxorii wrote:Why are you even saying these things? Why not argue my points instead of just insulting my heritage?

It’d make you look a lot smarter.

Geez, I didn't know you were Irish. Regardless, as a dual PhD candidate in Botany (with a specialization in Potatoes) and Irish Studies, I just call it as I see it from a strictly academic point of view.

Pevvania

The New United States wrote:Geez, I didn't know you were Irish. Regardless, as a dual PhD candidate in Botany (with a specialization in Potatoes) and Irish Studies, I just call it as I see it from a strictly academic point of view.

Aux is Irish?

Hmm... he did start the Reform Party. Now I see the connection!

The New United States

The New United States wrote:Oh, and Mien too. And whoever else that's loyal but just refuses citizenship.

Excuse me good sir I am a proud and honest traitor and I will not stand for these slanderous accusations that I am in any way loyal.

The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:It's another hoax to make the British Empire look "evil", like the so-called Bengali Famine. It's just like how the Spanish Inquisition has been exaggerated to make the Spaniards look bad. In reality, very few people died in the 'famine', if there even was a famine. Look at Ireland today - very successful economy. That's because of British help.

Pevvania wrote:Ireland benefited immeasurably from British colonial rule. It was taken from the swamps, the gutter, and turned into the proud nation it is today. Even if a few people died, isn't it worth the status it enjoys today?

Pevvania wrote:Also, you can't be "racist" against the Irish because the Irish are white. They were just less civilized, but we fixed that.

The New United States wrote:So true. British colonial rule has a quite impressive record of civilizing peoples and massively improving their living standards.

I honestly do shudder to think what Ireland or India or any other number of places would be like without the benevolent rule of the Crown.

The New United States wrote:Honestly, they still need a bit of work. I don't know of any other Western European countries that are as disorderly and with such terroristic tendencies. Might be that they got independence a bit too early.

Neither of you wouldn’t be so quick to talk like that if this was in person. You guys are toxic.

Rateria

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