Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

I see Socialism as a socio-religious damnable heresy of Christianity via post-Kantian/Hegelian reinterpretation of Classical Liberalism mad with patricide against Western Civ from the Peace of Westphalia to the conservation of the same today); and deranged idiotic with fratricide against its the joined at the hip Evangelical/Counter-Reformation Christianity in general and every Christian expression of the Enlightenment in particular.

Pevvania wrote:A better solution would just be to split the state into Coastal California (SF down to San Diego) and Inland California.

I really like the map that split CA into three. I cannot find it on the net now. I have searched for over 20 minutes for it. It has a propensity for 3 GOP senators, and 3 Democrat Senators. It looks like Google has expunged it in favor of the disingenuous 3-California plan. All the other plans seem to stack the Senate with Democrats.

North California: The mostly rural counties north San Fran and East of Oakland meeting South Cal at Lake Tahoe. Redding would be the largest urban area. It would create a mixed State with a chance for 1 Dem Senator and 1 Rep Senator.

Central California: The mostly coastal urban counties from the Silicon Valley and San Fran bedroom communities and the west of the Great Valley down through and including LA. It would creating a Democrat majority with 2 Dem Senators. It would be better named the Peoples' Workers' Socialists' Democratic Republic of California.

South California: San Diego up and including the military bases, curving up into the Sierra Nevada and meeting North California at Lake Tahoe. It would most likely result in 2 Republican Senators.

But my favorite split of California is this one. Perhaps Congress can legislate is so:

[img]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_California#/media/File:California_island_Vinckeboons5.jpg[/img]

Pevvania wrote:A better solution would just be to split the state into Coastal California (SF down to San Diego) and Inland California.

If we can break New York City and Long Island off of New York State while we're at it that'd be great.

Pevvania, Narland, Rateria

Miencraft wrote:If we can break New York City and Long Island off of New York State while we're at it that'd be great.

#miencraftforgovernor

At this point it seems like people want to just break off into separate countries. The United States of Red and the United States of Blue. Honestly people would probably be a lot happier with that arrangement

Skaveria wrote:At this point it seems like people want to just break off into separate countries. The United States of Red and the United States of Blue. Honestly people would probably be a lot happier with that arrangement

A lot of people would, at least initially. This whole concept is easier said than done, as you can tell. The first thing that comes to mind is having a lot of people migrate to desired locations, which would be very time and resource intensive. This also makes me wonder how the borders would be drawn. Would they be decided on by referenda by inhabitants?

Something I'm wondering is why do I have a black market when I have low taxes and most drugs are legal

Skaveria wrote:At this point it seems like people want to just break off into separate countries. The United States of Red and the United States of Blue. Honestly people would probably be a lot happier with that arrangement

But then what happens when the blue and red countries develop competing political parties?

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:But then what happens when the blue and red countries develop competing political parties?

In the red countries it will be libertarians vs conservatives and in the blue countries it will be socialists vs non-socialists

Narland, The New United States, Skaveria

Miri Islands wrote:Something I'm wondering is why do I have a black market when I have low taxes and most drugs are legal

Max Barry logic.

Narland, Rateria

Rateria wrote:A lot of people would, at least initially. This whole concept is easier said than done, as you can tell. The first thing that comes to mind is having a lot of people migrate to desired locations, which would be very time and resource intensive. This also makes me wonder how the borders would be drawn. Would they be decided on by referenda by inhabitants?

It as a bit more more complex than reorganizing counties, or splitting the counties that western states still do. There are procedures in place if one wants to dust the books off at the State archives. It is usually applied starting with the State legislatures involved and then sent to Congress, or or through a Convention of the States involved and then brought to Congress. Armed revolt to reorganize worked in the 1800's (for counties within States), but I wouldn't recommend it today.

Idaho, Oregon, and Washington almost got rearranged into 3 different States in the early 00s of the 20th Century. Washington and Oregon west of the Cascades would have been Washington. North Eastern Washington and northern Idaho would have been Jefferson. Southern Oregon and southern Idaho would have been the state of Lincoln. The bill got pocket vetoed by the President because he was back at his home state and too ill to get to get to the White House to sign it.

Shortly thereafter the Anarchist movement was blowing things up and assassinated one of the Idaho Governors involved (for different reasons). By the next election the general population of Washington was persuaded that it would cause more harm than good and it didn't get back through that legislature. It hasn't been retried since.

The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:But then what happens when the blue and red countries develop competing political parties?

Then we split and split until people reach their desirable state, even if it's a state of one.

Narland, The New United States

Skaveria wrote:At this point it seems like people want to just break off into separate countries. The United States of Red and the United States of Blue. Honestly people would probably be a lot happier with that arrangement

For a little while it would probably make most people happy. The Contiguous Red states would only have Lewiston, Idaho as their Pacific Ocean international sea port and that would be a bummer. The Canadian RR from Alaska ports to Red States would be very busy (and profitable).

I would prefer to break the US into their Red and Blue counties--that would be more fair. Purple counties could vote for which ever.

Red, or Blue there isn't a strain of Statism anywhere in which Statists aren't happy until every body is micromanaged into their straightjacket of Utopian bliss. We could have avoided both Brave New World and 1984, but until Trump rattled the Beltway Establishment it looked like we're going to get the worst of both.

I think republicans should take their Blue color back. Red is for Tories, Monarchians, Democrats, Establishment GOP, Commies, and other Revolutionary Socialists.

The New United States

Pevvania wrote:But then what happens when the blue and red countries develop competing political parties?

GOP has always been a uneasy alliance of competing factions. The will break up into Neocon/Moderate Socialists, Americanist Whigs, and Right-Libertarians with the tension between the ModSoc and the RiLib giving Individualist Whigs the common ground.

Democrats are an amalgam of Moderate (Fabian/Bureacratic) Socialists, Admistrative Statists, Labor, and variegated Special Interest Liberation Fronts (including Progressivists and Left-Libertarians). The tension would fall between Fabian Socialists (Admistirative Bureacratic and Academic State supporters being the conservatives) and the loudest of the special interest group with the common ground probably being the (old) New Left.

Pevvania, The New United States

Miri Islands wrote:Something I'm wondering is why do I have a black market when I have low taxes and most drugs are legal

Miencraft wrote:Max Barry logic.

Miencraft's answer is correct. Barry scored -3.5, -3.5 (Left-Libertarian) on the Political Compass test and considers himself a militant centrist. It seems he is not anti-globalist, but he is very anti-corporatist, confusing it with free markets. I am anti-globalist, anti-corporatist, and pro free-market enterprise, and his calculations for NationStates are slightly disconcerting from my perspective.

In a truly free-market, the black market will only consist of items gained by fraud, theft or violence. The more contaminated free enterprise is with despotism, the more benign items will be found on the black market confounding the issue. The less the free market is artificially restricted the more obvious it is that the a true black market is harmful. There will always be people selling fraudulent goods or stolen property, and in a land of Liberty that is the only thing that a black market can be.

The New United States, Wyattish

Hello again, post-revolutionary embryonic societies and/or lawless wastelands. It's me again. I know you missed me.

The New United States

New poll in Zentari. Come and vote!

Your favorite type of alcohol?

Fixed Poll.

The New United States

Zurkerx wrote:New poll in Zentari. Come and vote!

Your favorite type of alcohol?

Fixed Poll.

Gin is good stiff

Zurkerx wrote:New poll in Zentari. Come and vote!

Your favorite type of alcohol?

Fixed Poll.

Miri Islands wrote:Gin is good stiff

I have a really weird taste in alcohol:

I literally only drink vodka, for whatever reason. I’ve had other drinks, but vodka is the only one I consistently consume. I don’t even like the taste, I hate it, and yet I will down it straight like it’s no problem. I’ve had it with sodas, juices, all kinds of drinks mixed with it, but at the end of the day, I always prefer it straight.

I don’t know how my taste ended up like this but there it is.

Jadentopian Order wrote:I have a really weird taste in alcohol:

I literally only drink vodka, for whatever reason. I’ve had other drinks, but vodka is the only one I consistently consume. I don’t even like the taste, I hate it, and yet I will down it straight like it’s no problem. I’ve had it with sodas, juices, all kinds of drinks mixed with it, but at the end of the day, I always prefer it straight.

I don’t know how my taste ended up like this but there it is.

I always mix mine. Gin is too strong on it's own (47.8% alcohol by volume. I usually do 2 or 3 ounces with a can of 7up

Jadentopian Order wrote:I have a really weird taste in alcohol:

I literally only drink vodka, for whatever reason. I’ve had other drinks, but vodka is the only one I consistently consume. I don’t even like the taste, I hate it, and yet I will down it straight like it’s no problem. I’ve had it with sodas, juices, all kinds of drinks mixed with it, but at the end of the day, I always prefer it straight.

I don’t know how my taste ended up like this but there it is.

I don't really have a preffered drink(s). I'll usually just go for some 4lokos or bottom shelf vodka, but it's entirely for the cheapness. I can get 1.75 liters of Skol vodka for 13 dollars.

Pevvania

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:

For some reason Libertarians cannot agree on the fact that Fascism is Anti-Libertarianism...

Because most people who call themselves "Libertarian" are either conservatives or people like the alt-right who hide their fascism because its not socially acceptable.

Skaveria wrote:I don't really have a preffered drink(s). I'll usually just go for some 4lokos or bottom shelf vodka, but it's entirely for the cheapness. I can get 1.75 liters of Skol vodka for 13 dollars.

I've had a few lokos, good for getting drunk quickly, but I'm not too big a fan of the taste.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:You're my favorite Fascist.

Christians, Muslims, and a whole truckload of smaller sects agree that there's an Anti-Christ...

For some reason Libertarians cannot agree on the fact that Fascism is Anti-Libertarianism...

Jadentopian Order wrote:Because most people who call themselves "Libertarian" are either conservatives or people like the alt-right who hide their fascism because its not socially acceptable.

I don’t really remember having any experience with libertarians saying that fascism isn’t anti-libertarian, except maybe for those “liberty for me, none for thee” types. I sure don’t think that the two ideologies are compatible. At that point, you might as well have capitalist communism and violent pacifism.

The New United States, Republic Of Minerva

I like to mock fascists now.

Ah, it's great not having to hide your power-level (persona) irl.

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Miri Islands wrote:Gin is good stiff

Hard Drinks

tbh, i do not like altered states of consciousness. My natural one is troubling enough. If i drink it is just enough not to get buzzed. Wine at Seder (or Communion), and some spiced rum egg-nog or some bourbon/whisk(e)y/wry during a cold snap.

One of my grandfather's drank Dr. Black's Snake Oil Tonic up until his death for who knows why. My cousin still has one of his last bottles. If anyone knows anything about the company please let me know. They are harder to find than Shepard's Smart Pills.

Soft Drinks

I do like some beers but non-alcoholic. Give me an old-fashioned home made birch or ginger beer any day; maybe a root beer (slightly bitter) made from sassafras (not sarsaparilla) and lightly sweetened with molasses and liquorice -- not the sickly sweet gunk marketed in the stores.

Back in my youth a 60's recipe Dr. Pepper still made from cane sugar was the poison of choice, but nothing really since the corporate lobbying interest forced corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup down our throats.

Cooking

I do like rum and bourbon and Japanese plum wine (if it really is a wine) for cooking though.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:You're my favorite Fascist.

Christians, Muslims, and a whole truckload of smaller sects agree that there's an Anti-Christ...

For some reason Libertarians cannot agree on the fact that Fascism is Anti-Libertarianism...

Fascism was a transformative experimental Socialism proto-type that choose to raise a generation of proletariat from creches while slowly (relative to Communism) phasing out the old order. The most powerful of society who had the means were the slowest to change. Like a construction crew starting on the 40th floor and working downward, it had to adapt itself on the fly while falling at terminal velocity. And like all forms of socialism, ultimately failed. They had only managed to barely raise one generation of "New Socialist" offering their own children to the state creches before it came crashing down. Communists (Revolutionary International Socialists) deliberately obfuscate the Socialism of Fascism, and exaggerate its differences. So much of Fascism is anomalous, much of it by intent of the history teachers most of whom see Internationalistic Bureacratic Socialism as good and Nationalistic Corporatic socialism as bad, ignoring that the strongest poison in the cocktail is socialism.

Plus, many people merely use Fascism as a byword, that they do not understand themselves. It is hard to hit an amorphous target.

Long and short, Fascism has become an almost meaningless vague and arbitrary term in the 21st Century.

Libertarianism can only have half an Anti-Libertarian, from this perspective anyway. The Communism (Marxist-Leninism) that Ayn Rand escaped from is the ontological Anti-Libertarian from the standpoint of an Industrialist Objectivism. The Libertarian weak spot in identifying Fascism as the Ant-Libertarian is that that Left-Libertarianism in particular cannot exclude the same epistemological Existentialism (in the general sense) that both Randian Libertarianism and all forms of Socialism share. I think it might be one of the the reasons Libertarians that reject the objective principles of Natural Law still argue as if there was one there.

Consistent (and thoughtful) Paleoconservatives share Libertarians ontology in common with American Classical Liberalism. We share the Objectivism but not the Existentialism. Paleocons epistemological hold to Classical Realism of Early Modern Christian Humanism which is as anti-Fascist in thought that one can literally get.

Pevvania, The New United States

Skaveria wrote:I don't really have a preffered drink(s). I'll usually just go for some 4lokos or bottom shelf vodka, but it's entirely for the cheapness. I can get 1.75 liters of Skol vodka for 13 dollars.

Jesus Skaveria, do we really have to have the same tastes and opinions on everything?

Skaveria

That Epic Moment when America is a colonialist white supremacist hate-state but America was also instrumental in forcing the European powers to give up their colonial empires after World War II

The New United States, Miri Islands

Nobody here likes whiskeys? I admit its more of a old man drink but it is my favorite

Narland

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I like to mock fascists now.

Ah, it's great not having to hide your power-level (persona) irl.

More people on the right need to get into seriously mocking fascists. Some are way too eager to accept fascism.

Suzi Island wrote:Nobody here likes whiskeys? I admit its more of a old man drink but it is my favorite
I drank two cans of half-coke half-whiskey once and that might have been one of the most scuffed drinks I’ve ever had.

Suzi Island wrote:Nobody here likes whiskeys? I admit its more of a old man drink but it is my favorite

I prefer white liquor, but I also love Honey Jack Daniels.

Pevvania

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I like to mock fascists now.

Ah, it's great not having to hide your power-level (persona) irl.

More people on the right need to get into seriously mocking fascists. Some are way too eager to accept fascism.

Rateria

Fascism is only useful as a tool to wield against Communism, nothing more.

Tupolite, Miri Islands

Skaveria wrote:Fascism is only useful as a tool to wield against Communism, nothing more.

Well, we know how that one turned out.

Pevvania, Narland, Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Jadentopian Order wrote:Well, we know how that one turned out.

That's why after you use the fascists you fascist the fascists so they can't fascist no more.

Narland, The New United States, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:That's why after you use the fascists you fascist the fascists so they can't fascist no more.

*Thanos meme*

“I used the fascists to destroy the fascists.”

The New United States, Skaveria

Suzi Island wrote:Nobody here likes whiskeys? I admit its more of a old man drink but it is my favorite

yes, during a cold snap a little bit of Rye/Whisky/Whiskey/Bourbon to warm the innards -- it was in the Hard Drink part of the previous post. :) I think the whiskey's are the hard drink of choice for most cowboys and ranchers.

When a teenager, a cousin had a poster of a chaotic kitchen with a disheveled couch potato in his skivvies pouring beer over cereal. The caption read, "Beer, It just isn't for breakfast anymore."

Jadentopian Order wrote:More people on the right need to get into seriously mocking fascists. Some are way too eager to accept fascism.

It's just very cringey sometimes and smacks of virtue signalling. To me saying "fascists are bad" is the same as saying "water is wet". It'll apparently win you virtue signal points but nothing more. Plus, when leftists attack "fascists" or "fascism" they're usually talking of anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders, or - heaven forbid - the dreaded free speech advocates.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, The United States Of Patriots, Skaveria, Miri Islands

Also let me restate: I've never actually had a Four Loko, but I agree that cheap vodka is great for kickbacks and parties. If I'm going for quality my preference is a Jack Daniels and Coke. Beer is great, I like Budweiser but will drink any kind really. Wine is good. I'll really drink anything if I'm totally honest.

Jadentopian Order

x

Pevvania wrote:It's just very cringey sometimes and smacks of virtue signalling. To me saying "fascists are bad" is the same as saying "water is wet". It'll apparently win you virtue signal points but nothing more. Plus, when leftists attack "fascists" or "fascism" they're usually talking of anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders, or - heaven forbid - the dreaded free speech advocates.

What gets me is Communism and Fascism are the same murderous, thieving two-headed lunatic siamese-twin joined at the thorax that must share the same innards and legwork. Both heads despise each other and use their respective arms to pummel the other one's head, while stomping on everything and everyone else around them. The Communist head just has a better PR agent. Its PR agent is so good it has been able to persuade people that they are two entirely separated individuals (one is the good twin and the other is the unrelated evil "non"-twin) that are a world apart from each other.

Miencraft, Pevvania, The New United States

Guess which one the media is outraged about: a funny parody video shown at a Trump resort depicting Trump shooting CNN and Bernie, or the fact that women Trump supporters were just assaulted on camera outside of a rally?

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States

Pevvania wrote:Also let me restate: I've never actually had a Four Loko, but I agree that cheap vodka is great for kickbacks and parties. If I'm going for quality my preference is a Jack Daniels and Coke. Beer is great, I like Budweiser but will drink any kind really. Wine is good. I'll really drink anything if I'm totally honest.

Lokos are for when you’d really like to be hammered, and you really don’t want to spend much. I have been a huge fan of the Most Holy Church of Cheap Vodka, but I did try some pricy raspberry vodka recently and I can see why people pay for it now.

Cheap vodka and a few friends is always a good time.

Pevvania, Skaveria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Lokos are for when you’d really like to be hammered, and you really don’t want to spend much. I have been a huge fan of the Most Holy Church of Cheap Vodka, but I did try some pricy raspberry vodka recently and I can see why people pay for it now.

Cheap vodka and a few friends is always a good time.

Hell yeah it is. The funny thing is I used to hate vodka, like really dislike it, and I'm still not a fan of the taste but when you're a student you need to go for efficiency over quality lol!

There's a beverage here in New Zealand called a Scrumpy. It's essentially a 1.25 litre (2.5 pints) bottle of flavored cider. 8% alcohol and it costs the equivalent of $6 USD. I'm 6 foot but I can get drunk just off a bottle of this. Revolutionary stuff

Jadentopian Order

As a practicing Latter-day Saint, the stiffest drink for me is Diet Dr Pepper. :P

Pevvania, Narland, The United States Of Patriots

If there is a market correction in 2020, Trump should campaign on auditing the Fed.

Narland, The New United States

Pevvania wrote:If there is a market correction in 2020, Trump should campaign on auditing the Fed.

I don't see any reason to need a reason to audit the Fed -- Full audit as per the FRA of 1913. Everything the Progressivists have ever proposed that has removed us from our Liberty in favor of Statism and its ensuing corruption has been a failure, and the Federal Reserve System is as disingenuous as any of them. Over 100 years of robbing the productivity of the working people whom they purported to support to get their "extraconstitutional" powers.

You can bet the Banksters are in Trumps ear cheering him on with his economy in order to draw attention away from them.

Pevvania, The New United States

Skaveria wrote:Fascism is only useful as a tool to wield against Communism, nothing more.

It is but why is it that libertarians are so spineless and so morally consistent to not purge the fascists when they serve their use? Most of the time there is a civil conflict the right wingers win but the fascists usually take control shortly afterwards subverting the more freedom minded individuals. This isn't stopped by the populous who usually wants order after a civil conflict and find the fascists message of peace at any cost appealing. How can libertarians ever gain control if they aren't willing to get their hands dirty in the name of their ideology? Everyone else does it and millions have died over it

Miri Islands wrote:How can libertarians ever gain control if they aren't willing to get their hands dirty in the name of their ideology?

Because the instant someone does, they cease to be libertarian*.

We can't advance our ideology by betraying it. We have to do it the right way, and the right way is the hard way.

Yeah we're gonna lag behind the guys who are out there spreading their ideas by force. But we kind of have to if we're gonna prove that we're better than them.

*Obviously it's not that straightforward and there are plenty of situations where a libertarian would justifiably need to take up arms to defend freedom, but I get the feeling that this isn't what you're talking about.

Narland, Highway Eighty-Eight

Miri Islands wrote:It is but why is it that libertarians are so spineless and so morally consistent to not purge the fascists when they serve their use? Most of the time there is a civil conflict the right wingers win but the fascists usually take control shortly afterwards subverting the more freedom minded individuals. This isn't stopped by the populous who usually wants order after a civil conflict and find the fascists message of peace at any cost appealing. How can libertarians ever gain control if they aren't willing to get their hands dirty in the name of their ideology? Everyone else does it and millions have died over it
Libertarians are on a totally different front, outnumbered, outgunned, but not outmanoeuvered. The real nemesis to Libertarianism is Statism in contradistinction to Individualism. Socialism and its progeny (in all its forms including Communism, Fascism) is but one of the forms of Statism that Libertarianism refutes.

Revolutionary Socialism comes in two forms -- kill everyone not conducive to furthering the next 5 year plan (Communism), and those willing to let the old order pass away through attrition (other forms such as Fabianism/Progressivism and Italian Fascism). It is an internecine fight properly belonging to the revolutionaries. If both (real) Fascist and (actual) Communists are in the streets fighting each other, it is too late, the revolution is over, and you missed it -- society has disintegrated to the point where next phase (reconstruction through the winning Socialist Party faction) can begin.

Right now there are faux Commies (Antifa) looking for real fascists (there are too few). When the Revolution comes they (Antifa) will be the first people murdered by the real Communists to gain power. (You cannot trust traitors to the old regime as they may also turn on the new).

Another reason is that Fascism is an anomalous byword that means nothing but connotes massive negative baggage. It is difficult to fight chimeras of the past that have no real relevance in the present except for some Sunni countries. I have tried, and in general no one wants to discuss Fascism as it was practiced. They all want to discuss fascism in vague terms that has nothing to do with reality. It is not worth the effort to refute something that isn't wholly there.

Finally, Libertarianism (and Classical Liberalism) persuades by reason and example, not by force of arms. Individuals are free to live and let live. As Jefferson said, "Evils are sufferable ... until a long train of abuses." They (Progressivists) have already removed our county armories and our impetus for self-government by an encroaching bureaucratic state that is slowly strangling our country and our livelihoods.

The red line for standing against felonious unlawful abuses under color of authority for most of us (as it was for the Founders) is if/when they come after our guns by force. I am not looking forward to it should it happen, but I have to consider if I want my children and grandchildren to be free to govern themselves in their own country or live in the shackles of slavery beholden to someone else's governance by an abusive state in a land no longer their own.

Miencraft, The New United States

The New United States wrote:As a practicing Latter-day Saint, the stiffest drink for me is Diet Dr Pepper. :P

Diet, Ew

The New United States

Timely article from Jeff Deist at the Mises Institute:

https://mises.org/wire/politics-drops-its-pretenses

Narland

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Diet, Ew

Dr. Pepper with cane sugar (bottled in Germany or Original Recipe -- not the corn syrup replacement formula) is my fizzy soft-drink of choice . Aspartame in large quantities causes neurological damage. You might consider switching to something with stevia or monk fruit. :)

The New United States

Miencraft wrote:Because the instant someone does, they cease to be libertarian*.

We can't advance our ideology by betraying it. We have to do it the right way, and the right way is the hard way.

Yeah we're gonna lag behind the guys who are out there spreading their ideas by force. But we kind of have to if we're gonna prove that we're better than them.

Civil wars are no time to be principled. The principled are always taken advantage of and discarded when their utility has been expended. To use the enemy rhetoric 'the ends justify the means' in this case it is such. It has been proven time and time again that liberty and free markets lead to prosperity and that statism leads to genocide and misery. The way of the libertarian in civil conflict should be infiltration and subversion when the communists are on their last legs. Establish law and order and purge problematic fascists. When order is established in the state it is acceptable to become principled once again.

Miri Islands wrote:Civil wars are no time to be principled.

Then why bother having principles, if we throw them away when they're inconvenient?

Narland, Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Miencraft wrote:Then why bother having principles, if we throw them away when they're inconvenient?

To survive against the other ideologies of a civil war we can't be afraid to play by their rules. Part of their rulebook is that dissent must be quashed at all costs, the enemy must be killed at all costs. Principles are for the idealist not the pragmatist. The idealist communist would have every citizen working hard to help his fellow man. The idealist fascists would have everyone work for the betterment of the nation. But they're pragmatic and know this isn't going to be the case, yet the libertarians hold tight to their principles stuck in an idealistic fantasy of making people see the light as thought it were a cult. I cannot name an example of this taking place as given the choice people will chose the authoritarian and regret it.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

I would say that getting our hands dirty to keep fascists from fascisting and communists from communisting is well within the NAP. I tend to be a fan of Hoppe on this one. The act of trying to instill an authoritarian government is in itself an act of aggression that could and should be met by force.

Narland, Miri Islands

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:"Spineless," ... "Morally consistent.,"

Are you talking about the same group? How can one be spineless and also be morally consistent?

It perfectly within the relm of possibility to be both. Libertarians tend to hide behind their principles like the NAP. It's a very convenient excuse to sit back in cowardice hoping the new government allows you to live

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Miri Islands wrote:To survive against the other ideologies of a civil war

I think is is kind of ironic, considering the whole deal with libertarianism is we're not some monolithic ideology that can be spearheaded by a Mussolini or a Stalin and used to forcibly control people.

This isn't a unified ideology. It literally is principles - if we give up those principles, we no longer have an ideology.

Miri Islands wrote:we can't be afraid to play by their rules.

Yes, yes we can. Because the whole point of believing the things that we do is that we know we're better than them, and we can prove that we're better than them.

The instant we start playing by their rules we give up every single advantage we've ever had and become just another faction of barbarians vying for power.

That isn't the way. That isn't right. When the time comes, we can either do things the right way, or we're not going to do them at all.

You can't spread liberty by force. What you're proposing has nothing to do at all with liberty and is not a means by which liberty can be promoted, so really all you're suggesting is that when push comes to shove, we abandon everything we believe in and just throw ourselves into the mud with the savages trying to promote tyranny. How is it even physically possible to believe that that's the libertarian option?

After all, you're literally suggesting that libertarians ought to just throw libertarianism away completely when the situation is inconvenient, and taking the time to maintain our moral high ground by actually observing the ideology we're going to claim to be spreading would make us weak.

You know what weakness looks like? It looks like surrendering everything you believe in because believing in them isn't convenient anymore. It looks like refusing to stand properly against the enemy and demonstrate to them our principles and show them that we are better, because we will never lower ourselves to their level. Absolutely nothing that can ever be conceived to exist is worth giving up on the true cause of liberty. Not life, not power, nothing.

Miri Islands wrote:Libertarians tend to hide behind their principles like the NAP.

Our principles are what distinguish us from the totalitarians. They're what make us better how can we ever pretend to be different than them, better than them, if we discard them at the first sign of trouble?

Narland, Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Libertarianism isn't just the NAP (even if it were, statists trying to take control of a government is a violation itself). Libertarians aim to pursue high amounts of personal freedom and small government and fighting those who want to subject the population to authoritarianism is perfectly within the bounds of libertarianism.

Miri Islands wrote:fighting those who want to subject the population to authoritarianism is perfectly within the bounds of libertarianism.

Not if we have to sacrifice our principles to do so.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:*When simply desiring to violate the NAP is a violation of the NAP*

F*ck, I must violate the NAP all the time.

Voting for authoritarians brings authoritarianism closer to fruition, therefore it's an act of violence.

Jadentopian Order, Miri Islands

Skaveria wrote:Voting for authoritarians brings authoritarianism closer to fruition, therefore it's an act of violence.

Yes!!

Jadentopian Order wrote:Yes!!

BUT, one quick caveat though. I'd run amiss to not mention that I'm also a Trump voter and he has a few authoritarian elements to him. So the lesser of two evils still applies.

Imagine someone has a gun to your head and makes you shoot your friend. A Trump vote is shooting them in the leg, a Hillary vote is the head. A Johnson vote was meaningless, that's just refusing to take a shot. That's not an option, if you don't pick, someone else will take the shot. I chose to shoot America in the leg rather than the head, maybe to buy us enough time to get out of this hostage situation.

Miri Islands

Narland wrote:I don't see any reason to need a reason to audit the Fed -- Full audit as per the FRA of 1913. Everything the Progressivists have ever proposed that has removed us from our Liberty in favor of Statism and its ensuing corruption has been a failure, and the Federal Reserve System is as disingenuous as any of them. Over 100 years of robbing the productivity of the working people whom they purported to support to get their "extraconstitutional" powers.

You can bet the Banksters are in Trumps ear cheering him on with his economy in order to draw attention away from them.

I was under the impression the Fed is never audited, and keeps its accounts and decision-making secret?

We had the same problem with Reagan on gold. His own instincts were to return the gold standard, but he had too many voices in his ear telling him not to rock the boat.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:But this is a civil war situation if I'm not mistaken. Miri advocating what seemed to be a bullet in the head of any statist. That's how interpreted his statement about acting like the bad guys.

Well if they attack you first, then it's all fair game. Just do what I do, wear a MAGA hat in close proximity to antifa, wait for the inevitable assault to occur, then go to town on them.

Skaveria wrote:Well if they attack you first, then it's all fair game. Just do what I do, wear a MAGA hat in close proximity to antifa, wait for the inevitable assault to occur, then go to town on them.

Why has this not happened already? Genuine question. Are most MAGA people just not looking for a fight and don't carry in public, or are most Antifa attacks/assaults in cities where CC/OC is forbidden?

(Not advocating violence by the way, just curious!)

The best way to conduct a libertarian/conservative/constitutionalist 'civil war' would be to model it on Lincoln's political strategies in the first Civil War while minimizing direct engagement and any actual fighting. Turn it into a referendum on the Constitution. The US Army both leans conservative and likely has more allegiance to the US than their individual state, so I highly doubt a liberal/leftist side could muster up the forces to effectively prosecute a civil war.

The best option would be to arrest and prosecute all politicians that have violated or plan to violate their constitutional oath for sedition (which would probably be 50-70% of them at least). Paralyze the leftist state governments in CA, NY and elsewhere by raiding the state capitols and arresting the corrupt/seditious politicians. Organize a series of trials to show the world America takes corruption and authoritarianism seriously. Pass a series of constitutional amendments affirming the Founders' vision (term limits, balanced budget amendment, income tax repeal, etc). Since the rebelling states can be suspended from the Union, like Lincoln did, these amendments could be passed with ease. Appoint temporary reconstruction-style governments to clean up the situation in California, New York and the other disloyal states, and only allow their re-admission into the Union if a majority pledge allegiance to the Constitution, including the new amendments. This idea is more problematic, but it would also be a good idea to forcibly break up and dissolve CNN, NBC and the other MSM networks that undermine the United States Constitution.

I think this would be a good reset and minimize any potential bloodshed or violence while reorienting the country back to its constitutional duties.

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria, Miri Islands

Pevvania wrote:Why has this not happened already? Genuine question. Are most MAGA people just not looking for a fight and don't carry in public, or are most Antifa attacks/assaults in cities where CC/OC is forbidden?

(Not advocating violence by the way, just curious!)

It has. We have had street battles between antifa and the proud boys.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:It has. We have had street battles between antifa and the proud boys.

I mean why haven't the Proud Boys/right-wingers defended themselves with guns?

Skaveria wrote:BUT, one quick caveat though. I'd run amiss to not mention that I'm also a Trump voter and he has a few authoritarian elements to him. So the lesser of two evils still applies.

Imagine someone has a gun to your head and makes you shoot your friend. A Trump vote is shooting them in the leg, a Hillary vote is the head. A Johnson vote was meaningless, that's just refusing to take a shot. That's not an option, if you don't pick, someone else will take the shot. I chose to shoot America in the leg rather than the head, maybe to buy us enough time to get out of this hostage situation.

It's exactly like you said, someone else will take the shot. It's better to not shoot at all than to shoot.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:It has. We have had street battles between antifa and the proud boys.

Proud boys? The white nationalists?

Pevvania wrote:NY

Imagine being the state that refused to ratify the Constitution without the guarantee that a bill of rights would be added to it, and then turning into modern New York.

Pevvania, Narland, Rateria, Miri Islands

Pevvania wrote:The best way to conduct a libertarian/conservative/constitutionalist 'civil war' would be to model it on Lincoln's political strategies in the first Civil War while minimizing direct engagement and any actual fighting. Turn it into a referendum on the Constitution. The US Army both leans conservative and likely has more allegiance to the US than their individual state, so I highly doubt a liberal/leftist side could muster up the forces to effectively prosecute a civil war.

The best option would be to arrest and prosecute all politicians that have violated or plan to violate their constitutional oath for sedition (which would probably be 50-70% of them at least). Paralyze the leftist state governments in CA, NY and elsewhere by raiding the state capitols and arresting the corrupt/seditious politicians. Organize a series of trials to show the world America takes corruption and authoritarianism seriously. Pass a series of constitutional amendments affirming the Founders' vision (term limits, balanced budget amendment, income tax repeal, etc). Since the rebelling states can be suspended from the Union, like Lincoln did, these amendments could be passed with ease. Appoint temporary reconstruction-style governments to clean up the situation in California, New York and the other disloyal states, and only allow their re-admission into the Union if a majority pledge allegiance to the Constitution, including the new amendments. This idea is more problematic, but it would also be a good idea to forcibly break up and dissolve CNN, NBC and the other MSM networks that undermine the United States Constitution.

I think this would be a good reset and minimize any potential bloodshed or violence while reorienting the country back to its constitutional duties.

I like the ideals behind this, but I have my doubts. I personally can’t get behind the government dissolving opposing media outlets. Is this scenario plausible? I don’t think so, and I expect any potential civil war to be more outright and violent than this. Even attempting to capture lawmakers would lead to bloodshed, even if the only violence involved is combat against their immediate protectors, and I expect any real situation to go much farther than this. I’ve heard that government-run simulations predict a 40% defection rate in the military in an event such as this, but I haven’t seen a source for this beyond hearsay on social media. I sincerely doubt that any sort defection rates would be that high, but maybe I’m wrong. One strategy I have heard in regards to this hypothetical civil war is to strike infrastructure used by the US government, but not harm any civilians.

Miencraft, Narland

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Rateria wrote:I like the ideals behind this, but I have my doubts. I personally can’t get behind the government dissolving opposing media outlets. Is this scenario plausible? I don’t think so, and I expect any potential civil war to be more outright and violent than this. Even attempting to capture lawmakers would lead to bloodshed, even if the only violence involved is combat against their immediate protectors, and I expect any real situation to go much farther than this. I’ve heard that government-run simulations predict a 40% defection rate in the military in an event such as this, but I haven’t seen a source for this beyond hearsay on social media. I sincerely doubt that any sort defection rates would be that high, but maybe I’m wrong. One strategy I have heard in regards to this hypothetical civil war is to strike infrastructure used by the US government, but not harm any civilians.

You're probably right about the media thing to be honest.

And I'm sure that the US government has some kind of secret civil war strategy. I mean these are the same ones who had secret war plans to attack Canada and Great Britain in the 20th Century.

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:It's exactly like you said, someone else will take the shot. It's better to not shoot at all than to shoot.

Proud boys? The white nationalists?

Aren't they civic nationalists?

Miri Islands

Pevvania wrote:Aren't they civic nationalists?

Gavin McInnes has spoken in favor of white-genocide theory, and it is really not hard to find plenty of other quotes of his that aren't exactly the best. For example: https://archive.fo/rchYa The proud boys are a slimy group of people.

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Jadentopian Order wrote:Gavin McInnes has spoken in favor of white-genocide theory, and it is really not hard to find plenty of other quotes of his that aren't exactly the best. For example: https://archive.fo/rchYa The proud boys are a slimy group of people.

I'm not defending them, I don't really know much about them and don't subscribe to alt-right politics, but isn't that kind of what many on the left advocate? Making whites a minority to seize political power?

Tupolite

Jadentopian Order wrote:Gavin McInnes has spoken in favor of white-genocide theory, and it is really not hard to find plenty of other quotes of his that aren't exactly the best. For example: https://archive.fo/rchYa The proud boys are a slimy group of people.

If you look at the lefts anti white rhetoric I don't blame anyone for believing it

Tupolite

Pevvania wrote:I'm not defending them, I don't really know much about them and don't subscribe to alt-right politics, but isn't that kind of what many on the left advocate? Making whites a minority to seize political power?

Miri Islands wrote:If you look at the lefts anti white rhetoric I don't blame anyone for believing it

I don't think I've ever encountered a leftist who has advocated for "white genocide", I genuinely, 100% believe that it's just a strawman that people on the right are led to believe so they have a reason to call their opponents racists.

Highway Eighty-Eight

Jadentopian Order wrote:I don't think I've ever encountered a leftist who has advocated for "white genocide", I genuinely, 100% believe that it's just a strawman that people on the right are led to believe so they have a reason to call their opponents racists.

It's not so much white genocide but white replacement physically, and white erasure culturally

Tupolite

Jadentopian Order wrote:I don't think I've ever encountered a leftist who has advocated for "white genocide", I genuinely, 100% believe that it's just a strawman that people on the right are led to believe so they have a reason to call their opponents racists.

They're not stupid, they wouldn't outright call for a white genocide

Pevvania wrote:I was under the impression the Fed is never audited, and keeps its accounts and decision-making secret?

We had the same problem with Reagan on gold. His own instincts were to return the gold standard, but he had too many voices in his ear telling him not to rock the boat.

Yes, that is my point. the Fed has never been audited. The Fed, an NGO was given their extraconstitutonal authority for three reasons (according to it proponents):

stop boom and bust cycles (economic bubbles),

stop massive/persistent bank bankruptcies (bailouts and ), and

stop depreciation of the currency (now worth 2% what it once was).

They have failed.

A full audit was never implemented when it was patently obvious their reasons for passing the FRA was patently fraudulent. It would mean dismantling the institution and trying members, officers, and unwarranted beneficiaries of their crimes. The Congressional dereliction borders on sedition to say the least, and I see the Feds actions as treasonous.

Upon failure the Fed is to return the currency (and pertinent monetary instruments) of the United States back under the direct authority of Congress and the administration of the US Treasury at par with the value it was received: $1 US @ 1/35 troy ounce (icr it may have been billed at 1/20) and $1 US @ 1 ounce. There is not enough gold and silver or real property in the world to recover the amount that the Fed (with assistance by the US Congress) in the last century has defrauded us by their overdrafting upon the reserves and credit of the People of the US.

If we ever can elect a Congress that will weed out corruption, The question is, "Will the Fed surrender to a statutory audit (finally), or will they go down with a fight and crash the world economy?" If they surrender, Congress can redeem the Federal Reserve Notes with greenbacks (US Treasury Notes) at $42 US for $1 Federal reserve note, and rebuild our monetary reserves.

I am sure you know, but for those who do not, Federal Reserve Notes are not US money proper, but instruments of a private concern -- the Federal Reserve is a private bank beholden to no one. As structured they print certificates of indebtedness (IOUs) as Federal Reserve notes drawn on the authority of Congress. Congress is charged a fee and must pay back (i.e., the US taxpayer) the Fed with interest for every dollar that is created through Congressional appropriations. Further notes (as Dollars) are created by fractional reserve banking and loans set at $1000 to one (iirc).

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Jesus Skaveria, do we really have to have the same tastes and opinions on everything?

The flags too. Eeeeeeeeeerily similar. Maybe you are both unknowingly becoming a part of the Lorg, a Transhuman Libertarian Individualist Collective connected by thought beams?

I was never good with spooky Halloween stories so I will stop and go back to my day job. :)

Pevvania, Rateria

Narland wrote: you are both unknowingly becoming a part of the Lorg, a Transhuman Libertarian Individualist Collective?

'Individualist collective' that's funny

Miri Islands wrote:Civil wars are no time to be principled. The principled are always taken advantage of and discarded when their utility has been expended. To use the enemy rhetoric 'the ends justify the means' in this case it is such. It has been proven time and time again that liberty and free markets lead to prosperity and that statism leads to genocide and misery. The way of the libertarian in civil conflict should be infiltration and subversion when the communists are on their last legs. Establish law and order and purge problematic fascists. When order is established in the state it is acceptable to become principled once again.

There are reasons why wars like the American Revolutionary War for Independence was a success and bloodbaths like the French Revolution was such an abject failure. In the former Truth, Justice, and Peace (civil order) were respected, continued, and reinforced; in the latter they were the first casualties of the war. If might makes right by any means necessary, then no principles (no matter how profound) are worth fighting and dying for, and any pretext to steal, kill and destroy is valid.

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:I don't think I've ever encountered a leftist who has advocated for "white genocide", I genuinely, 100% believe that it's just a strawman that people on the right are led to believe so they have a reason to call their opponents racists.

Well it's been commonly known DNC and Dem Party strategy for years to allow non-whites to become a majority (for right or wrong) in order to outnumber Republican-voting whites. Michael Moore, for example, recently cheered in an interview that America is becoming less white. It's pretty transparent why they've suddenly come around to defending illegal immigration...

Skaveria, Miri Islands

I've also experienced some anti-white sentiment in college. Not overtly, but whenever the topic of changing demographics comes up they get this creepy smile on their face... Don't get me wrong, I don't care if white people become a minority, in a few hundred years we're all gonna be beige anyways, but it's weird that they always seem so stoked on the fact that there's less white people.

Just today I was called a "spoiled white boy" while trying to explain the concept of Minarchism to someone over Facebook. (I know, Facebook debates aren't a good idea, but I can't help myself)

The trend of "white" being used as an insult in pop-culture, people saying "I'm so white" in a sort of self-deprecating way, the use of "Becky" and "Karen" as a derogatory term for white women, implies their whiteness makes them somehow boring or snobby, it's everywhere in the culture now. Being white is seen as negative by a large number of youth.

I actually have a theory about why school shooters tend to be white males. Every other ethnicity is given a pass for paling around with each other almost exclusively. Black dudes hang out with black dudes, latinos with latinos, asians with asians. It doesn't translate to women either because women just hang out with other women.

Young white males don't have that ethnic or gender bond with each other, if they hang out, it's around a personality trait or an interest, like "The jocks" or "The stoners" this means that individuals who fail to develop their personality enough to get into a group fail to do so, and they don't have an ethnic or gender group to fall back on, leaving them isolated. Just a theory.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Miri Islands

Also, Proud Boys are Civic Nationalists, Gavin just likes provoking the left with faux-racism because he knows he's gonna be labeled that anyways.

Skaveria wrote:I've also experienced some anti-white sentiment in college. Not overtly, but whenever the topic of changing demographics comes up they get this creepy smile on their face... Don't get me wrong, I don't care if white people become a minority, in a few hundred years we're all gonna be beige anyways, but it's weird that they always seem so stoked on the fact that there's less white people.

Just today I was called a "spoiled white boy" while trying to explain the concept of Minarchism to someone over Facebook. (I know, Facebook debates aren't a good idea, but I can't help myself)

The trend of "white" being used as an insult in pop-culture, people saying "I'm so white" in a sort of self-deprecating way, the use of "Becky" and "Karen" as a derogatory term for white women, implies their whiteness makes them somehow boring or snobby, it's everywhere in the culture now. Being white is seen as negative by a large number of youth.

I actually have a theory about why school shooters tend to be white males. Every other ethnicity is given a pass for paling around with each other almost exclusively. Black dudes hang out with black dudes, latinos with latinos, asians with asians. It doesn't translate to women either because women just hang out with other women.

Young white males don't have that ethnic or gender bond with each other, if they hang out, it's around a personality trait or an interest, like "The jocks" or "The stoners" this means that individuals who fail to develop their personality enough to get into a group fail to do so, and they don't have an ethnic or gender group to fall back on, leaving them isolated. Just a theory.

My grandfather would consistently say that his grandfather said, "The white race is a political fiction created by demagogues to control weak minds." That g-g-grandfather was a radical republican, abolitionist who fought in fought in the Civil War. I tend to agree. It sounds like its time to pull out the civics books and knock the New Racists down to size, and point out how Unamerican, unjust/unfair, and unsocial/uncivil they are.

Had the US the same immigration policies as Mexico, we would all be darker skinned as a people. But we did not. And it matters that much the less.

America was not founded on a race but an idea -- Classical Liberalism as practiced through the Scottish Enlightenment by English Mainline Evangelical Christians influenced by the Great Awakening. Most integrated people consider themselves Americans from whatever nation their ancestry came (Italian-American, Japanese-American, etc). The only thing Marxist Dialecticists have against Liberty and Equality are lies, half-truths, and innuendos to use to create fragmentation of society, and hatred of the American ideal.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Fascism is only useful as a tool to wield against Communism, nothing more.

And then when the party of national solidarity disintegrates, everything can go back to how it was with capital and labor as mortal enemies, the caprice of insufficiently regulated financial markets, volatile ethnic resentments, mounting urban squalor, useless talking-head politicians, reporters, and radio show hosts feigning exaggerated outrage, the disintegration of national educational standards, and the institutionalized celebration of every brand of social deviancy.

This is what happens when all the power and authority dictating the relations among men are made reciprocal. Those too shallow and petty to be allowed that share of power run amok with it and push their "individuality" to increasingly absurd limits, whereas the inherently great and visionary ones lack power enough to make order out of the madness, at least until they break the rules and seize power to themselves.

Pevvania wrote:Well it's been commonly known DNC and Dem Party strategy for years to allow non-whites to become a majority (for right or wrong) in order to outnumber Republican-voting whites. Michael Moore, for example, recently cheered in an interview that America is becoming less white. It's pretty transparent why they've suddenly come around to defending illegal immigration...

This is true, all American politics amounts to is a mess of incompatible tribes trying to vote the biggest share of the country's resources to themselves vis a vis the federal government.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

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