Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Pevvania wrote:

Also, I'm now an anarchist.

Oh ok. Why, what happened ?

Pevvania

Will you start to call us all evil statists ?

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:Oh ok. Why, what happened ?

Was leaning towards it until Dr. David Skarbek, an American economist at King's College, London, refuted the perceived free rider problem of anarchism in regards to policing.

Basically, any free rider problems with policing under anarchy would be negligible, because criminals would stay away from property protected by private defense agencies and flock to properties which are known not to be covered. Incentives matter.

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:Will you start to call us all evil statists ?

I thought I did that already? ;)

Keynes vs Hayek

Keynesian Economics

>tired at work? get wasted to stimulate productivity

>hangover? blame it on being sober, get wasted again and repeat to infinity

>die

Austrian Economics

>hangover? get sober, avoid alcohol and sleep well

>work hard all day

>live long and prosper

Pevvania wrote:Spent the day at the Liberty League Freedom Forum in King's College, London. It was fantastic to connect with liberty activists from around the UK. There were also a lot of Americans there. The US is having a positive effect on the UK and international liberty movements.

Also, I'm now an anarchist.

Why do you hate freedom and the NAP? I'm sorry, I can't respect you any more. =x

Pevvania wrote:Was leaning towards it until Dr. David Skarbek, an American economist at King's College, London, refuted the perceived free rider problem of anarchism in regards to policing.

Basically, any free rider problems with policing under anarchy would be negligible, because criminals would stay away from property protected by private defense agencies and flock to properties which are known not to be covered. Incentives matter.

I thought I did that already? ;)

Which is an incredibly stupid position that assumes that the protection offered by private police will apply solely to a certain property and not create externalities. In the same sense that if a rich person moves to a poor neighborhood will make that neighborhood more valuable, a PDA defending a sole property will benefit all properties in it's radius.

You'd have to have a pretty grim outlook on politics to advocate a system that doesn't promise universal protection from crime. Though that's not to say all systems deliver on that promise...

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Why do you hate freedom and the NAP? I'm sorry, I can't respect you any more. =x

Which is an incredibly stupid position that assumes that the protection offered by private police will apply solely to a certain property and not create externalities. In the same sense that if a rich person moves to a poor neighborhood will make that neighborhood more valuable, a PDA defending a sole property will benefit all properties in it's radius.

Just like how the Vikings avoided London and Paris.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Why do you hate freedom and the NAP? I'm sorry, I can't respect you any more. =x

Which is an incredibly stupid position that assumes that the protection offered by private police will apply solely to a certain property and not create externalities. In the same sense that if a rich person moves to a poor neighborhood will make that neighborhood more valuable, a PDA defending a sole property will benefit all properties in it's radius.

Yes, but making one house more safe makes the non-PD'd house less safe. The crooks may avoid most of the neighbourhood, but when they see that Old Man Desmond doesn't have a 'Covered by ProtectCo' sign on his front yard like the rest of the houses, that immediately makes it a target.

Camille Paglia, a truly great feminist - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIomA2MQNI4

Yankee Freedom Fighters

Issue:

Porcupineball - a sport that is extremely popular in Muh Roads but not so much anywhere else - is causing a slew of concussions in An-cap schools. Brain trauma from the head-on collisions is causing cognitive problems and - on occasion - deaths.

.... I wonder why? -_-

Muh Roads wrote:Issue:

Porcupineball - a sport that is extremely popular in Muh Roads but not so much anywhere else - is causing a slew of concussions in An-cap schools. Brain trauma from the head-on collisions is causing cognitive problems and - on occasion - deaths.

.... I wonder why? -_-

Better than Creeperball.

Board Seats, April:

Seat One: Pevvania (i, RLP)

Seat Two: Hallo Island (RLP)

Seat Three: Muh Roads (i, RLP)

Seat Four: Right-winged nation (i, RLP)

Seat Five: Northern Prussia (i, RLP)

*deadpan, monotone* The RLP has done it again. Amazing. This is the second month in a row that they have full control of the Board - it was a close race, but Hallo beat Yrellian for Seat Two. Some eight people, a few of whom were not even citizens, participated in the election. What a turnout.

And the results for Peoples' Attorney are in: A grand total of absolutely no one has made a bid for the position. Astounding.

Alright, Hallo has volunteered for the Peoples' Attorney position. Remember: Anyone other than the Founder, President, or Attorney-General can be the Peoples' Attorney - any challengers?

Hallo Island

I think Hallo is just the right man for the job.

Hallo Island

I demandth an executive referendum on our flag!

Yankee Freedom Fighters, Conservative Idealism In Libertatem, Yrellian Confederacy

All RLP members should notify me as soon as possible as to whether they wish to stand as the RLP Nominee for President. Right now, Muh Roads is the only candidate. If no other candidates arise by 2nd of April, there will be no primary and Muh Roads will be nominated by default.

Right-Winged Nation

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I demandth an executive referendum on our flag!

Request granted.

Y'all have a week to submit flags for public consideration, at which point we will hold a vote on this referendum to decide whether to change the flag - and if so, to what.

Republic Of Minerva

Pevvania wrote:All RLP members should notify me as soon as possible as to whether they wish to stand as the RLP Nominee for President. Right now, Muh Roads is the only candidate. If no other candidates arise by 2nd of April, there will be no primary and Muh Roads will be nominated by default.

All Glory to Muh Roads/ The Future President of Libertatem!

Muh Roads

Muh Roads wrote:I think Hallo is just the right man for the job.

Since there are no challengers, Hallo is Libertatem's Peoples' Attorney now. And, as always, the people of Libertatem can change their minds at any time - but I certainly hope not, because he's our only volunteer right now.

On an unrelated note, I support the idea of a Muh Roads Presidency.

Muh Roads

As far as I know Muh Roads could be a great president * hopes to keep his post *

Muh Roads, Hallo Island

Who is in charge of the Confederacy of the law of Libertatem account ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

I've just watched this video and read the comments. I seriously think that I've never seen so much bullshit mixed with hate in my life.

Internet Liberals can seriously compete with these web racists conspiracists in terms of stupidity and ignorance.

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

I've just watched this video and read the comments. I seriously think that I've never seen so much bullshit mixed with hate in my life.

Internet Liberals can seriously compete with these web racists conspiracists in terms of stupidity and ignorance.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Hallo Island

Yrel, will you be going to the European Students for Liberty Conference in a few weeks?

So guys the new law the pence just signed in indiana, this religious freedom nonsense. I can't believe it passed and i am not for it thoughts?

Hallo Island

If an Indiana business refuses service to individuals based on their sexual orientation, they could either go out of business due to government intervention without that law, or go out of business due to public opinion, outcry, and boycotts with that law. Personally, I'd prefer to see the latter - business owners should be free to express their religious beliefs (or, in the case of bigots, "religious" beliefs) without fear of a lawsuit... knowing full well that the market will run its course accordingly.

Pevvania

Property is property is property - businesses can service whoever they wish. End of.

The New United States

Right-Winged Nation wrote:So guys the new law the pence just signed in indiana, this religious freedom nonsense. I can't believe it passed and i am not for it thoughts?

Briefly popping in to voice my agreement with RWN as a resident Hoosier.

I will now shrink back in to obscurity, Pev do not hurt me.

Pev would not hurt a fly

Hallo Island, The Neo-Confederate States Of America

Unless the fly was a Communist.

Pevvania, Conservative Idealism In Libertatem, Hallo Island, Yrellian Confederacy

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Personally, I'd prefer to see the latter - business owners should be free to express their religious beliefs (or, in the case of bigots, "religious" beliefs) without fear of a lawsuit... knowing full well that the market will run its course accordingly.

Exactly this!

Thank you for the support everybody, I've got quite a few ideas to help Libertatem move forward! Also keep in mind my radio station will be presenting soon, I have a few details to work out but it's coming I promise!

Hallo Island

Pevvania wrote:Property is property is property - businesses can service whoever they wish. End of.

I don't think you should refuse someone due to sexual orientation

Hallo Island

Pevvania wrote:Yrel, will you be going to the European Students for Liberty Conference in a few weeks?

Probably not, unfortunately.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I don't think you should refuse someone due to sexual orientation

That option should be there; businesses have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. People might not like it, but that's how this works.

I personally don't think it's right to bar someone from using a service just because they're gay (or not, because it can go that way too), but it's also not right to refuse to give someone the ability to run their business how they see fit. The latter is much more important, and honestly I really don't care how people run their own businesses, because that's not my business.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem

Well, technically business owners have a right..., but you get what I mean.

Always 2nd place to Coumba. :(

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I don't think you should refuse someone due to sexual orientation

I don't think you should dictate how an individual manages his own resources.

Pevvania

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11113892_995338200493849_1042629887882747704_n.png?oh=766b89536a0577217408bfd8bb617966&oe=55B4EA50&__gda__=1437586920_77bc5a9cc21694db546903a7da5cb82d

Ancap: You're a statist, you've admitted you want a government!

"An"com: Government is totally different than state!

Ancap: You're an idiot.

"An"com: No, I'm a moron, that's totally different!

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem, Hallo Island

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I don't think you should refuse someone due to sexual orientation

Humpheria wrote:Briefly popping in to voice my agreement with RWN as a resident Hoosier.

I will now shrink back in to obscurity, Pev do not hurt me.

But this is rooted in the idea that businesses open to the public automatically have a responsibility to follow the orders of the government; i.e., discrimination legislation is built on the preposition that the government owns publicly accessed property. But the fact is that property does not change just because it's open to more people. If somebody owns something, they can do what they like with it - this includes discrimination. In fact, it'd be better to have anti-gay signs in front of businesses so I could know which companies not to give my money too. Also, all constitutionalists, conservatives and libertarians should oppose private anti-discrimination legislation, because they're blatant violations of the First Amendment.

And I'm not unaffected by these. I'm what one would call "mixed-race". I was once refused a ride by a taxi driver because I'm part Sri Lankan. That guy was an asshole - but forcing him to give me a ride against his will just makes no sense. Private discrimination laws are the Obamacare of free speech.

The New United States, Conservative Idealism In Libertatem, Hallo Island

What do you guys think about death penalty ?

I really think it's hard to defend when you support libertarian value.

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:What do you guys think about death penalty ?

I really think it's hard to defend when you support libertarian value.

It's a tough one. I probably follow Rothbardian principles on criminal punishment, meaning that the punishment should double the crime unless the victim demands less. But I think it's very dangerous for the government to kill people.

I am against the death penalty, however I think it should be an option for the criminal as an "alternative" to life in prison, sort of like the Ancient Romans practiced.

I'd be against it if it weren't vastly more expensive to keep a criminal in prison for life.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I am against the death penalty, however I think it should be an option for the criminal as an "alternative" to life in prison, sort of like the Ancient Romans practiced.

Don't like the death penalty?

Become an executioner and change it from the inside

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:What do you guys think about death penalty ?

I really think it's hard to defend when you support libertarian value.

The government should never have the right to take a life.

Hello everyone! I started this game earlier today after surfing the internet. I tried to start up in the International Republican Union, but it really didn't work, so I asked Conservative Idealism to recommend a region, so here I am.

Hallo Island

Why does my post say "[heart]Hallo Island"? What does this mean?

Tamarand wrote:Why does my post say "[heart]Hallo Island"? What does this mean?

It means Hallo pressed the "Like" button.

Hallo Island

Oh, and welcome.

If you've got 100k to send my way so I can move to New Hampshire, that'd be appreciated.

Joking, of course.

About the second part.

You're still welcome here.

...

Get used to that. That's how I joke on the internet. Nobody can hear tone of voice so I have to point it out in a painfully obvious way whenever I joke.

Miencraft wrote:Oh, and welcome.

If you've got 100k to send my way so I can move to New Hampshire, that'd be appreciated.

Joking, of course.

About the second part.

You're still welcome here.

...

Get used to that. That's how I joke on the internet. Nobody can hear tone of voice so I have to point it out in a painfully obvious way whenever I joke.

Oh. Thanks.

It's quite alright. What's so great about New Hampshire? I drove through there once on a way to Connecticut and it wasn't that great. Just trees and factories.

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Tamarand wrote:Oh. Thanks.

It's quite alright. What's so great about New Hampshire? I drove through there once on a way to Connecticut and it wasn't that great. Just trees and factories.

Apparently one of the most (if not the single most) libertarian states in the Union.

As a libertarian living on Long Island, that's a very appealing prospect. Especially since everyone around here is really, really dumb.

That's cool. I like Libertarians.

Tamarand wrote:That's cool. I like Libertarians.

You couldn't possibly be in any less of a wrong place.

Or, in regular terms, this is exactly the right place for someone like you.

Anyhow, as the Manager of Tomfoolery (that is, Internal Affairs), I highly encourage you to go read through our laws if you plan on staying.

They're useful.

Miencraft wrote:Anyhow, as the Manager of Tomfoolery (that is, Internal Affairs), I highly encourage you to go read through our laws if you plan on staying.

They're useful.

I will do so, thank you!

What's the deal behind these bills being passed in Arkansas and Indiana?

Tamarand wrote:Oh. Thanks.

It's quite alright. What's so great about New Hampshire? I drove through there once on a way to Connecticut and it wasn't that great. Just trees and factories.

Just trees and factories? Certainly you then missed this:

http://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/travel/destinations/2014/10/17/photo-tour-beautiful-new-hampshire/16848785/

http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-against-death-penalty

ND is pretty libertarian friendly, sans the stupid religious laws.

Oh, good, this year's April Fools joke won't break the game.

I hope.

It's just Cards Against Humanity. Hopefully he didn't screw that up.

That said, if anyone feels like a game later today that'd be nice.

Northern Prussia wrote:What's the deal behind these bills being passed in Arkansas and Indiana?

From what I understand it's to make sure people aren't forced to do things they don't want to do.

I think. I'm a New Yorker, so I don't understand these things. I only understand that we have idiots who don't like what's going on, and since they don't like it it's probably a good thing going on.

Post self-deleted by The New United States.

On account of the fact that property rights are pretty much the keystone of Libertarian ideology, I am quite surprised that there are individuals in our regional government that believe that the state should have the right to coerce business-owners into trading with those who they do not wish to trade with.

Making the free individual render services at the barrel of a gun is simply immoral, oppressive, and tantamount to the evil that is leftist economics. It is, undoubtedly, incompatible with Libertarianism.

End of story.

Pevvania

I saw reports that it will discriminate against homosexuals and the bill lacks any provisions of such.

Post self-deleted by Conservative Idealism.

If anyone wants to play some Cards against NS later, just shoot me a TG and I'll see who I can round up.

Northern Prussia wrote:I saw reports that it will discriminate against homosexuals and the bill lacks any provisions of such.

It gives (or, rather, reinforces the right of) business owners the right to refuse service to gays if they don't want to serve them.

It's good to be in DC it's beautiful in the spring

Which is wrong you should not be allowed to refuse to serve someone because of that. Now i don't call for legislation, i call for the repeal of this bill

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Which is wrong you should not be allowed to refuse to serve someone because of that. Now i don't call for legislation, i call for the repeal of this bill

So, instead, you should be forced, as the owner of a private business, to serve people you don't want to?

It's a basically understood right that when you own a business, you can refuse service to anyone for any reason.

I don't agree with barring gays from using a business just because they're gay, but all that means is I won't give my money to a business that does such a thing, just as I wouldn't give my money to a business that does anything else I don't like.

Miencraft wrote:So, instead, you should be forced, as the owner of a private business, to serve people you don't want to?

It's a basically understood right that when you own a business, you can refuse service to anyone for any reason.

I don't agree with barring gays from using a business just because they're gay, but all that means is I won't give my money to a business that does such a thing, just as I wouldn't give my money to a business that does anything else I don't like.

There should not be legislation allowing you to bar gays i don't buy this "well you don't have serve anyone if you don't want to". By doing this, you restrict others rights to services and freedoms

Right-Winged Nation wrote:There should not be legislation allowing you to bar gays i don't buy this "well you don't have serve anyone if you don't want to". By doing this, you restrict others rights to services and freedoms

You should not be forced to serve people you don't want to serve.

There is, in fact, a legitimate right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. This cannot be taken away.

How do you stop businesses from discriminating against certain groups, then? Stop using their service/buying their goods. It's that simple.

And, anyways, if your entire argument is just going to be, "you shouldn't do this because it's wrong", I can say with equal validity:

You should not be allowed to eat fried foods on the second Wednesday in October, because I think it's morally wrong.

Can you please support your argument with something so we can have some fun here?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:There should not be legislation allowing you to bar gays i don't buy this "well you don't have serve anyone if you don't want to". By doing this, you restrict others rights to services and freedoms

"By not forcing people to buy health insurance, you restrict others rights to services and freedoms"

Miencraft wrote:And, anyways, if your entire argument is just going to be, "you shouldn't do this because it's wrong", I can say with equal validity:

You should not be allowed to eat fried foods on the second Wednesday in October, because I think it's morally wrong.

Can you please support your argument with something so we can have some fun here?

Miencraft wrote:And, anyways, if your entire argument is just going to be, "you shouldn't do this because it's wrong", I can say with equal validity:

You should not be allowed to eat fried foods on the second Wednesday in October, because I think it's morally wrong.

Can you please support your argument with something so we can have some fun here?

Miencraft wrote:And, anyways, if your entire argument is just going to be, "you shouldn't do this because it's wrong", I can say with equal validity:

You should not be allowed to eat fried foods on the second Wednesday in October, because I think it's morally wrong.

Can you please support your argument with something so we can have some fun here?

I understand that you don't have to serve people who are disorderly or causing commotion but to not serve someone due to sexual orientation is absurd. It is like saying that you can't serve blacks because of their skin color. Now obviously gays have not gone through what blacks have gone through but "i don't have to serve because of your race or your sexuality" is not acceptable. Blacks who were told this were treated awfully, and i'm not saying gays are going to go through it, but the whole notion contradicts freedom to those specific people, and as a libertarian i am against restricting freedom. I do not call for legislation and i don't call for government assistance, i ask that a bill that allows it be repealed

Pevvania wrote:"By not forcing people to buy health insurance, you restrict others rights to services and freedoms"

That is a completly different scenario. If people don't want to buy healthcare that is their business and if other people want to buy it that is fine. This is about denying a group of people the same rights to services as everyone else

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I understand that you don't have to serve people who are disorderly or causing commotion but to not serve someone due to sexual orientation is absurd. It is like saying that you can't serve blacks because of their skin color. Now obviously gays have not gone through what blacks have gone through but "i don't have to serve because of your race or your sexuality" is not acceptable. Blacks who were told this were treated awfully, and i'm not saying gays are going to go through it, but the whole notion contradicts freedom to those specific people, and as a libertarian i am against restricting freedom. I do not call for legislation and i don't call for government assistance, i ask that a bill that allows it be repealed

Like I just said, there's a very simple solution to this, and that is simply don't give them your business. Enough people do that, businesses that discriminate just for the hell of discriminating go out of business and the problem sorts itself out on its own.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:That is a completly different scenario. If people don't want to buy healthcare that is their business and if other people want to buy it that is fine. This is about denying a group of people the same rights to services as everyone else

Allowing someone to run a business the way they want to =/= denying rights to a certain group/several groups.

Miencraft wrote:Like I just said, there's a very simple solution to this, and that is simply don't give them your business. Enough people do that, businesses that discriminate just for the hell of discriminating go out of business and the problem sorts itself out on its own.

But a bill shouldn't be passed allowing it

Miencraft wrote:Allowing someone to run a business the way they want to =/= denying rights to a certain group/several groups.

So discrimination is acceptable, if that is how they want to do it

Right-Winged Nation wrote:But a bill shouldn't be passed allowing it

Why not?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:So discrimination is acceptable, if that is how they want to do it

As long as there's the option to, y'know, not give business to the bigots, the bigots won't have business.

Discrimination is bad, but if they want to be bigoted with their own private property then they can be bigoted.

Mises Institute exclusive interview with Ben Bernanke: http://mises.org/blog/april-1-exclusive-mises-institute-interview-ben-bernanke

Lol

All businesses should reserve the right to serve whomever they want.

Tamarand wrote:All businesses should reserve the right to serve whomever they want.

Honestly, I'm a bit surprised we've got people with the opposite opinion here, but whatever.

We've had some really strange people, so nothing here is all that weird anymore.

Miencraft wrote:Honestly, I'm a bit surprised we've got people with the opposite opinion here, but whatever.

We've had some really strange people, so nothing here is all that weird anymore.

Hallo arguably the strangest

Hallo Island

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Hallo arguably the strangest

I was thinking more along the lines of TTA, but Hallo works, I guess.

Hallo Island

Miencraft wrote:I was thinking more along the lines of TTA, but Hallo works, I guess.

Oh yeah him and his horses

To the nations of this glorious region,

The nation of Northern Prussia, has felt a great home being with this region and amongst its members. I have served dutifully as your Vice President and a member of the Board, but now I feel I should leave to create my own legacy. To ordain, I hereby resign from the office of the Vice President and as member of the Board. I am thankful for this region to grant me such an honor to serve this region. To further more, God bless our glorious alliance of Libertatem!

Right-Winged Nation wrote:There should not be legislation allowing you to bar gays i don't buy this "well you don't have serve anyone if you don't want to". By doing this, you restrict others rights to services and freedoms

Nobody has any rights to another's private property.

To say that I have the right to another individual's goods and services, regardless of if they do not wish to offer me their services, is to deny that individual's right to own and manage their own property. This is Socialism, through and through.

We have a divinely-ordained right to own property and a natural right to defend that property against those who wish to usurp our God-given freedoms.

I have no right to your property. You have no right to mine. I can sell my crap to whoever the hell I like. Period.

Miencraft

Northern Prussia wrote:To the nations of this glorious region,

The nation of Northern Prussia, has felt a great home being with this region and amongst its members. I have served dutifully as your Vice President and a member of the Board, but now I feel I should leave to create my own legacy. To ordain, I hereby resign from the office of the Vice President and as member of the Board. I am thankful for this region to grant me such an honor to serve this region. To further more, God bless our glorious alliance of Libertatem!

Wow.

So guys i want to start my radio station, how is that done?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:So guys i want to start my radio station, how is that done?

Make a factbook, slap some music in it, and send it to CI.

Right-Winged Nation

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:What do you guys think about death penalty ?

I really think it's hard to defend when you support libertarian value.

I personally support the death penalty. I personally think it just be reserved for murder and treason. There those who say that it is dangerous to allow the government to kill people, well under this logic, so is the government to imprison people, but most people are ok with putting people prison who are guilty of particular crimes.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:I personally support the death penalty. I personally think it just be reserved for murder and treason. There those who say that it is dangerous to allow the government to kill people, well under this logic, so is the government to imprison people, but most people are ok with putting people prison who are guilty of particular crimes.

Good point. Except that the definition of treason is flexible and defined by the state.

I wouldn't say we have a divinely ordained right, but it is essential that people own themselves and their labor.

I find it almost mandatory. We do not trust the government on little things like drugs, but suddenly we are fine with killing people - something that had been used historically to murder dissenters and etc? Unbelievable.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I wouldn't say we have a divinely ordained right, but it is essential that people own themselves and their labor.

In my religion, the right to private property, and to the defense thereof, is plainly supported by holy scripture and by the teachings of the Prophets.

Is the Latin American left coming to an end? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/22/latin-america-left-tough-times-brazil-argentina-venezuela

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