Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Ive got a damn crazy idea, maybe we should add an additonal 60 day wait before a citizen can hold office if they do not reveal their WA or are a conscientious objector. Long time yes, but thats the point.

Onocarcass wrote:Were can I look to get more info on what y'all are debating?

We are debating the WA clause of the FRAUD Act.

Section I

Purpose of the Act

Subsection I

Clarify specific laws on puppet use

Subsection II

Address voter fraud

Subsection III

Foreign puppets

Subsection IV

Citizenship

Section II

Clarify specific laws on puppet use

Subsection I

Any nation classified as a Citizen is entitled to the use of puppets

Subsection II

Said puppets ARE NOT Citizens, and do not have voting rights nor the right to stand for public office

Section III

Address voter fraud

Subsection I

Any Citizen may have only one vote in any office or legislative election or referendum

Subsection II

Only Citizens of Libertatem may vote in any office or legislative election or referendum

Subsection III

No nation that has resided in Libertatem for less than ten days may be qualified as Citizens

Subsection IV

Any nation convicted of voter fraud will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the sitting Attorney-General

Section IV

Foreign dignitaries

Subsection I

Any nation from any ally of Libertatem may send a dignitary puppet

Subsection II

These puppets must be identified as dignitaries to be granted proper rights

Subsection III

It is illegal for a foreign nation to send a puppet disguised as a sovereign nation

Subsection IV

After having membership of more than thirty days, these puppets will classify as Citizens

Section V

Citizenship

Subsection I

Only Citizens may hold office and vote in public elections, they are not required to do either

Subsection II

One must be a resident by at least ten days before being eligible for citizenship

Subsection III

Citizens who wish to stand for public office must identify their World Assembly nation to the President or Manager of Internal Affairs

Subsection IV

Once attaining office, they must inform the President or Manager of Internal Affairs the location of their World Assembly nation whenever relevant

Subsection V

After the residency requirement is met, a nation must notify the Manager of Internal Affairs

Subsection VI

The Manager of Internal Affairs will keep a public list of Citizens, and will manage the status and list of Citizens appropriately

Section VI

Annulment of Citizenship

Subsection I

Every Citizen has the right to renounce their Citizenship

Subsection II

Once renounced, their Citizenship can be restored upon an application to the Manager of Internal Affairs followed by enduring the ten-day waiting period once more

Subsection III

Citizenship of a nation can be revoked by the Manager of Internal Affairs or President, on the grounds of treason or other grievous violation of the law

Onocarcass wrote:Were can I look to get more info on what y'all are debating?

Read a day or so back on the RMB.

Humpheria wrote:In Libertatem? Never.

It's funny because it's true.

Muh Roads wrote:Ive got a damn crazy idea, maybe we should add an additonal 60 day wait before a citizen can hold office if they do not reveal their WA or are a conscientious objector. Long time yes, but thats the point.

But now, we have another problem, they can just wait and then plunge the region to hell.

We're currently discussing:

FRAUD Act

Section V

Citizenship

Subsection III

If a nation is a puppet, they must identify their WA nation in order to hold public office, with the exception of known military operatives

It's disagreeable because it requires a nation to say "X nation is my WA" in order to become a Citizen. Naturally, there are a number of problems with this: someone could lie, someone could refuse and thus be denied citizenship, and even a nation that shows their WA status could plan a coup anyway.

Humpheria wrote:But now, we have another problem, they can just wait and then plunge the region to hell.

Staying here 60 days and being active enough to be voted for would be quite a feat. Not to mention we do have some checks and balances in line. No security measure is going to be flawless though either.

Humpheria wrote:The nation that is running for office doesn't have to be WA. They need only tell the public who their WA puppet is to prove they aren't spies. A person can only have one WA, so it'd be hard to cheat.

multiple emails dude

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:multiple emails dude

Yeah but if the mods catch two WA nations on the same I.P. they are typically ejected.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:We're currently discussing:

FRAUD Act

Section V

Citizenship

Subsection III

If a nation is a puppet, they must identify their WA nation in order to hold public office, with the exception of known military operatives

It's disagreeable because it requires a nation to say "X nation is my WA" in order to become a Citizen. Naturally, there are a number of problems with this: someone could lie, someone could refuse and thus be denied citizenship, and even a nation that shows their WA status could plan a coup anyway.

Not become a citizen, hold office. You just said it your self. "... must identify their WA nation to hold public office..."

Muh Roads wrote:Yeah but if the mods catch two WA nations on the same I.P. they are typically ejected.

They use I.P. addresses, voting patterns, and other factors. Not just emails.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:We're currently discussing:

FRAUD Act

Section V

Citizenship

Subsection III

If a nation is a puppet, they must identify their WA nation in order to hold public office, with the exception of known military operatives

It's disagreeable because it requires a nation to say "X nation is my WA" in order to become a Citizen. Naturally, there are a number of problems with this: someone could lie, someone could refuse and thus be denied citizenship, and even a nation that shows their WA status could plan a coup anyway.

Well this nation is the only nation I've ever used so I don't have a puppet. So how would that work.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:multiple emails dude

I can't see much of a way around that.

Onocarcass wrote:Well this nation is the only nation I've ever used so I don't have a puppet. So how would that work.I can't see much of a way around that.

It is only for running for office. I would probably say join the WA.

Humpheria wrote:It is only for running for office. I would probably say join the WA.

Got it. thanx

Muh Roads wrote:Staying here 60 days and being active enough to be voted for would be quite a feat. Not to mention we do have some checks and balances in line. No security measure is going to be flawless though either.

Holy shniz! 60 days! Most nations don't even last that long, let's be reasonable here

Can we put this to vote now? I feel like it has been debated enough and we're to the " Yea or Nay it, just do it." I don't think we are going to be much more productive with this.

I mean, the 60 day idea might be dumb.. but I think it would allow everybody to at least have a little "breathing room" if you will.

Also, maybe add that random checkups on the legitimacy of citizenship and public office officials are to be conducted by the manager of internal affairs..? Perhaps they could also be requested at anytime and released to the public anytime a formal request is written..? (Obamas birth certificate anyone?lolol)

Lack There Of wrote:Holy shniz! 60 days! Most nations don't even last that long, let's be reasonable here

I dunno, I find it pretty reasonable for holding office.

I mean, you're gonna need to be here a reasonably long amount of time to gather the trust and support you need anyways, so why not a couple of months?

Hell, I've been around for maybe a year (two years in a month or two. I dunno exactly. Maybe three years. Time goes fast. Plus I can't go all the way back to "was Founded" in my happenings) and I haven't actually done anything.

Plus, it coincides with our election cycle.

Kinda.

Im just throwing ideas out there.

Muh Roads wrote:Im just throwing ideas out there.

I don't mean to sound critical, and an extended period would be good for elected officials (I still think 60 is a bit lengthy) but if we're talking straight citizenship I think 10days is long enough

Hmm, not bad, but I think it needs some fine-tuning.

So is it the general consensus that the legislation is ready to go to the House?

Lack There Of wrote:I don't mean to sound critical, and an extended period would be good for elected officials (I still think 60 is a bit lengthy) but if we're talking straight citizenship I think 10days is long enough

Nonono forgive me. I mean 60 days or reveal your WA for a place in office.

If they are trustworthy, they'll be voted in. That's what democracy is for.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:If they are trustworthy, they'll be voted in. That's what democracy is for.

Te spy might be a good liar.

Post self-deleted by Republic Of Minerva.

Humpheria wrote:Te spy might be a good liar.

Happens already a lot. Look at all the liars in the White House!

Republic Of Minerva wrote:If they are trustworthy, they'll be voted in. That's what democracy is for.

Rrriiggghhttt.

Look, this isnt some kind of foreign concept here. This legislation is extremely lenient compared to real world application. Fact is, if you want to hold office in the real world, you have to meet age and citizenship requirements both. In some places there are even stricter laws than that.

Muh Roads wrote:Rrriiggghhttt.

Look, this isnt some kind of foreign concept here. This legislation is extremely lenient compared to real world application. Fact is, if you want to hold office in the real world, you have to meet age and citizenship requirements both. In some places there are even stricter laws than that.

^^^^^^^This

Muh Roads wrote:Rrriiggghhttt.

Look, this isnt some kind of foreign concept here. This legislation is extremely lenient compared to real world application. Fact is, if you want to hold office in the real world, you have to meet age and citizenship requirements both. In some places there are even stricter laws than that.

It's lenient because it is a game.

Somebody who has been here for a long time, has participated in voting/raiding/whatever, and has generally been good influence, should be able to become president - not because they are or are not in the WA, or were here for a year.

All the citizenship and age laws I do not see helping either. Ted Cruz was born in Canada - yet you must be born in America to be the president, why is that? Is not holding American citizenship enough? Would Ted Cruz be any worse of half the American born politicians we had?

President Kennedy was extremely young to be in a white house, yet arguably did better than the much older Nixon of his time.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Happens already a lot. Look at all the liars in the White House!

no, this^^^^^

Also I think Muh had a good idea with the 60 days to hold office thing. 10 days works for official citizenship, so I think both of those ideas are pretty fair.

*says that even though he was elected to the board within 2 weeks of joining this region*

but wutevr

fair amount of time* there I go contradicting myself again.

They have to be in the WA to be president anyway. Little known fact: I am actually La Pasionara. I am currently plotting to destroy Libertatem. Even though I have done everything you described. (Sarcasm, of course.)

Republic Of Minerva wrote:It's lenient because it is a game.

Somebody who has been here for a long time, has participated in voting/raiding/whatever, and has generally been good influence, should be able to become president - not because they are or are not in the WA, or were here for a year.

Couple things partner, the president HAS to be in the WA. There cannot be an exception to that rule because we do not distinguish a difference between a WA Delegate and the President like some other regions. Secondly, if you dont do any of those things (vote/raid/whatever) within 60 days of being in the region your chances of being elected are slim to none.

Humpheria wrote:They have to be in the WA to be president anyway. Little known fact: I am actually La Pasionara. I am currently plotting to destroy Libertatem. Even though I have done everything you described. (Sarcasm, of course.)

I knew it all along too. :D

Humpheria wrote:They have to be in the WA to be president anyway. Little known fact: I am actually La Pasionara. I am currently plotting to destroy Libertatem. Even though I have done everything you described. (Sarcasm, of course.)

Do you mean "La Pasionaria?" That one spanish civil war lady?

Wikipedia is mankind's greatest invention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Pasionaria

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Do you mean "La Pasionaria?" That one spanish civil war lady?

No, the Internationale founder, Libertatem Enemy Number One.

Post self-deleted by Muh Roads.

Humpheria wrote:No, the Internationale founder, Libertatem Enemy Number One.

ah I see. Super commies and socialists. Gotcha.

What happened between Libertatem and them? Clearly this was before my time here.

Muh Roads wrote:Couple things partner, the president HAS to be in the WA. There cannot be an exception to that rule because we do not distinguish a difference between a WA Delegate and the President like some other regions. Secondly, if you dont do any of those things (vote/raid/whatever) within 60 days of being in the region your chances of being elected are slim to none.

Well, I mean as a main nation.

Humpheria wrote:No, the Internationale founder, Libertatem Enemy Number One.

I will find her. And I will destroy her.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:

I will find her. And I will destroy her.

Wasn't she DEAT by the mods?

LaPash CTE'd awhile back thankfully.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Wasn't she DEAT by the mods?

Im really running late to the party tonight. Haha.

Muh Roads wrote:LaPash CTE'd awhile back thankfully.

Anyway, why did the mods delete Las Pasionaria?

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Wasn't she DEAT by the mods?

Then I will find her in real life. Convince her to rejoin nationstates. And destroy her.

Also, how does the Internationale keep track of all those puppets? I have like 10-15 and I can't even keep track of them. :p

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Anyway, why did the mods delete Las Pasionaria?

That im not sure of.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Then I will find her in real life. Convince her to rejoin nationstates. And destroy her.

Also, how does the Internationale keep track of all those puppets? I have like 10-15 and I can't even keep track of them. :p

NS++ makes it too easy lol

Ok seriously could somebody fill me in here on La Pasionaria

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Ok seriously could somebody fill me in here on La Pasionaria

Basically, La Pas was pretty much helped but the commies on the map here in NS, I think.

Perhaps Pev would be better suited for this story. What I know is that what we are to freedom fighters, the Internationale is to NS Communists. they are larger than we and equally as powerful. For every commie region we took, they took a conservative region. NS got tired of La Pasionaria's crap and booted him out of the game. In the end... Us- 1 Him- Zip.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Anyway, why did the mods delete Las Pasionaria?

He broke every game rule in existence. He refounded regions, hacked accounts, insulted mods, cheated, lied, and inflamed people.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Ok seriously could somebody fill me in here on La Pasionaria

From what I understand, LaPash was the founder of The Internationale and The Red Fleet. They might be separate entities, I cant say for sure. What I do know for sure is that the commies worship(ed) LaPash like a god.

Humpheria wrote:Perhaps Pev would be better suited for this story. What I know is that what we are to freedom fighters, the Internationale is to NS Communists. they are larger than we and equally as powerful. For every commie region we took, they took a conservative region. NS got tired of La Pasionaria's crap and booted him out of the game. In the end... Us- 1 Him- Zip.

Wait, why did he or she or whatever get deleted? That doesn't make any sense

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Basically, La Pas was pretty much helped but the commies on the map here in NS, I think.

this really doesn't make any sense to me

Just check out the regions. They are full of propaganda. They make good bathroom reading material.

He made too many high-ups mad. Now, he has been martyred. The Internationale is now a museum in his honor.

Muh Roads wrote:Just check out the regions. They are full of propaganda. They make good bathroom reading material.

*chuckles*

Muh Roads wrote:Just check out the regions. They are full of propaganda. They make good bathroom reading material.

As well as toilet paper, when you're done reading them.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:As well as toilet paper, when you're done reading them.

Not sure if you have a printer in your bathroom or... nevermind.. :P

Muh Roads wrote:Just check out the regions. They are full of propaganda. They make good bathroom reading material.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:As well as toilet paper, when you're done reading them.

Both true. I like, cringed a little bit while I was reading. I couldn't handle the Marxism, it quite dimly was to much for me to handle.

Muh Roads wrote:Just check out the regions. They are full of propaganda. They make good bathroom reading material.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:As well as toilet paper, when you're done reading them.

Both true. I like, cringed a little bit while I was reading. I couldn't handle the Marxism, it quite dimly was to much for me to handle.

getting off for the night also

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Both true. I like, cringed a little bit while I was reading. I couldn't handle the Marxism, it quite dimly was to much for me to handle.

You literally have to wear a hazmat suit and a Reagan mask to be able to survive in there for over 5 minutes.

Just to let everyone know, I'm making a regional website for fun. Nothing official.

http://libertatemregion.webs.com/

Please tell me things you want contributed to the history section.

Humpheria wrote:http://libertatemregion.webs.com/

Nice ;)

Damn, fascists claimed a region before I did.

Also, I encourage libertarians of this region to vote in our poll: http://www.nationstates.net/region=laissez_faireholm#pollid_4271

1. FRAUD has been amended to dress several concerns. Citizens are not required to give WA status, but public servants are. This is not an 'authoritarian' measure at all - if I want someone to work for me, I'll tell them what requirements they need to fulfil if they want to do it. Otherwise, they don't need to take the job.

2. La Pasionara was deleted because of his absolute hostility in the face of everyone who did not conform to his totalitarian ideology. He treated every non-communist - and even other socialists - with complete disrespect. He was completely absorbed in the game. He was deleted because of these reasons.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Also, I encourage libertarians of this region to vote in our poll: http://www.nationstates.net/region=laissez_faireholm#pollid_4271

I am a neo-libertarian.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Damn, fascists claimed a region before I did.

Also, I encourage libertarians of this region to vote in our poll: http://www.nationstates.net/region=laissez_faireholm#pollid_4271

Monarchy? As in.. Anarcho-Monarchism?

Fair enough, if FRAUD is no longer going to be amended further than i vote YEA in favor of the current draft.

I still believe the WA solution can offer too many ways for someone to by-pass it; however it's a starting point.

I vote YEA

B- 4/5

M- 1/3

P- 1/1

H-1/∞

With all this mess I forgot to mention that I'll be leaving for Chicago this weekend. Going to have a "romantic adventure" as my ol' lady keeps calling it. Frankly, I'm scared.

Either way, my activity will be a bit low this weekend probably because I plan on spending 90% of my time there hammered. That is all.

- from the office of your extremely responsible Manager of Internal Affairs

Well... uh... I thought we had something special. *Starts to cry* We never do anything nice anymore. *sobs and runs away to hide under his desk*

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Damn, fascists claimed a region before I did.

Also, I encourage libertarians of this region to vote in our poll: http://www.nationstates.net/region=laissez_faireholm#pollid_4271

Big surprise I am an Objectivist Libertarian

Humpheria wrote:Well... uh... I thought we had something special. *Starts to cry* We never do anything nice anymore. *sobs and runs away to hide under his desk*

Oh Humpheria! What we have is special!

For the record I maintain my "nay" vote

Noted. I said B- 4/5.

Post self-deleted by Republic Of Minerva.

Muh Roads wrote:Monarchy? As in.. Anarcho-Monarchism?

Aye. I know several. They are quite an eclectic bunch.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Big surprise I am an Objectivist Libertarian

I am a firm believer in reason, natural rights and the pursuit of happiness, but Objectivism is an atheist ideology, something I cannot reconcile.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Aye. I know several. They are quite an eclectic bunch.

Really? I have yet to meet one. It seems odd to me that someone who advocates personal liberty would want a single ruler. Ah well, to each their own.

Muh Roads wrote:Really? I have yet to meet one. It seems odd to me that someone who advocates personal liberty would want a single ruler. Ah well, to each their own.

I have no idea what it is, but I'd assume that it would operate under the rule of law with a single leader being in place to protect it? I'd be happy to have a Libertarian dictatorship, for example, if the only power they could execute would be upholding the Constitution.

Pevvania wrote:I have no idea what it is, but I'd assume that it would operate under the rule of law with a single leader being in place to protect it? I'd be happy to have a Libertarian dictatorship, for example, if the only power they could execute would be upholding the Constitution.

Would it still be a dictatorship if that's all they could do though? Lol

http://anarcho-monarchism.com/

It's actually a pretty cool ideology...cooler than fascism, at least. Lol :p

Republic Of Minerva wrote:http://anarcho-monarchism.com/

It's actually a pretty cool ideology...cooler than fascism, at least. Lol :p

Werrrrrrt ?!

Republic Of Minerva wrote:http://anarcho-monarchism.com/

It's actually a pretty cool ideology...cooler than fascism, at least. Lol :p

Isn't everything.

Pevvania wrote:I am a firm believer in reason, natural rights and the pursuit of happiness, but Objectivism is an atheist ideology, something I cannot reconcile.

But if you believe in reason and natural rights I would think that you can see the flaws in religion and why it just doesn't work and how atheism does.

The Time Alliance wrote:Isn't everything.

I would say Communism is my most hated ideology probably because fascism isn't that applicable in most of the world anymore

Can we not? I love debates, but this debate goes nowhere.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:But if you believe in reason and natural rights I would think that you can see the flaws in religion and why it just doesn't work and how atheism does.

To quote Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty:

"The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious."

What separates us from mere animals is our reason. This is our gift from the Lord.

Please could we not?

Humpheria wrote:Can we not? I love debates, but this debate goes nowhere.

Humpheria wrote:Please could we not?

I'm in agreeance. Religious people are based around faith and knowledge; not proof. Thus the argument will go back and forth neither side gaining ground.

I'm religious by the way.......

Statists contend that the Commerce Clause gives them the power to enforce all kinds of mandates and restrictions, but I've heard elsewhere that the original, unadulterated meaning was to "keep commerce regular", as in, "stop Virginia from refusing to trade with New Hampshire".

Can anyone verify this?

Pevvania wrote:Statists contend that the Commerce Clause gives them the power to enforce all kinds of mandates and restrictions, but I've heard elsewhere that the original, unadulterated meaning was to "keep commerce regular", as in, "stop Virginia from refusing to trade with New Hampshire".

Can anyone verify this?

The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.

During the 1800s I believe the Commerce Clause interpretation empowered Congress to gain jurisdiction over numerous aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as non-commerce. During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited.Â

Since the latter half of the Rehnquist Court era, Congressional use of the Commerce Clause has become slightly restricted again, being limited only to matters of trade (whether interstate or not) and production (whether commercial or not).

The Time Alliance wrote:I'm in agreeance. Religious people are based around faith and knowledge; not proof. Thus the argument will go back and forth neither side gaining ground.

Pevvania wrote:To quote Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty:

"The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious."

What separates us from mere animals is our reason. This is our gift from the Lord.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80RyHTIqN2U

Watch all three parts and then tell me about "the lord."

Or if you don't that's fine I just want to present a video that thoroughly culminates my opposition to religion.

The Time Alliance wrote:I'm religious by the way.......

A religious leftist?

Blasphemy! Off with your head!

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