Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
You don't have to participate if you don't want to, so leave people who do alone. There's nothing wrong with nations working together.
International Union For Peace
It's based on principle. Any vote for a new piece of legislation (besides a repeal) is an acknowledgement that the World Assmebly should have control over our people. It is an acknowledgement that the bureaucrats of the World Assembly have more right to dictate the policies of each nation than those nations themselves.
I understand that he votes for our benefit. I also understand that delegates have more influence in the WA, as I was once a delegate. But not all new legislation harms us.
International Union For Peace
The game necessitates that we join the World Assmebly, if we ever want to do more than answer issues and post on the RMB.
As a raiding/defending region with an active Delegate, we are inextricably tied to the machinations of this Assembly - the most moral thing we can do is endeavor (often in vain) to reduce the amount of control it exerts over the policies of its members.
Miencraft, The New United States
It's not like they're voting for anything that is in any way harmful. They vote for human rights and safety.
International Union For Peace
If legislation is truly benign, then why must it be forced on all members of the World Assembly?
Miencraft, The New United States
The legislation is often helpful.
International Union For Peace
If you're in the WA, you're not being forced to do anything. You are choosing to follow its rules.
Rateria, International Union For Peace
I see your point, but we have a say in what they pass. Many people find that essential to democracy.
International Union For Peace
There's more to democracy - or, at least, the beneficial implementation thereof - than mob rule. It's majority say without regard for minority rights.
Nothing is stopping an individual nation from passing civil rights initiatives within their own borders. But for any nation that desires to be a delegate, or a defender, or an author of Security Council proposals, the WA doesn't give them a choice, and leaving is not a viable option. Furthermore, the wording of many examples of GA legislation suggests that a nation's government should be compatible with their contents - meaning that anarchy is implied to be illegal (because some laws require a government to enforce them), bureaucracy is implied to be mandatory (because some laws demand the creation of new government departments to endorse their contents), and nations can't find equally effective alternatives to the inflexible GA resolutions... at least, until they're repealed.
Miencraft, The New United States
I have to reveal something to my region. I am MtF transgender and see the rights of libertarianism as necessary to allow people like myself to not be oppressed by religious fundamentalists.
Miencraft, Hallo Island, Condealism, The American Empire In Libertatem
The Serbian Empire, International Union For Peace
Well, you have my full support.
The Serbian Empire, Rateria, International Union For Peace
They legislate that our governments must transgress the rightful confines of the state.
Miencraft, Condealism
What is your preferred pronoun?
Female ones... You can call me Marisa.
International Union For Peace
I see your point. But how does the WA oppress the minority? Please, tell me more.
International Union For Peace
What else is there to say? The majority of the WA decides which way not only they themselves, but also the minority, run their nations - they impose entitlements and regulations upon every member of the World Assembly, and every piece of legislation permitted to accomplish this tyranny is another infringement of a member nation's sovereignty.
Miencraft, Kings Island, The New United States
The Independence Caucus is still a thing, if anybody wants to join up and show their solidarity against the World Assembly.
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_new_united_states/detail=factbook/id=273569
lol ew
International Union For Peace
Ah, thanks for explaining. But what do you mean by mob rule?
International Union For Peace
You know, mob rule. Governance by a crowd. A large group of people telling a smaller group how to live their life. Democracy minus the safeguards. A popular vote without justice or equality.
DOS Reform Act is in the Laws.
I don't think it's often appreciated how bad the original President Bush was. Any foreign policy successes aside, he went out of his way to expand government, increasing taxes without so much as a trade-off for spending cuts (in 1991, his proposed budget would have actually spent more than the Democrats), passing unconstitutional top-down regulations like the Americans with Disabilities Act, bringing in 'gun-free zones' and banning imports of semi-automatic weapons. President Reagan cut the number of pages in the Federal Register in half, but Bush actually increased the number of pages, i.e. the number of regulations. All Bushes are bad, except perhaps Prescott Bush for trying to overthrow President Roosevelt.
Miencraft, Tyrinth, Hallo Island
The annoying thing about the WA is that it's not just mob rule, it's rule of the ignorant. They vote yes on nearly every proposal. For example, they voted to condemn North Korea, and then repealed the condemnation just days later. They're a bunch of hacks.
Miencraft, Tyrinth, The New United States, Condealism, Sweden And Finland
Yeah I gave up on it
The New United States, International Union For Peace
Interesting day, huh?
It's been something.
International Union For Peace
Ok. Point taken. Thank you for your time.
International Union For Peace
So you're saying that the WA is full of yes-men? I find that statement true. Although there are plenty of members that aren't like that.
Pevvania, International Union For Peace
And rubber stampers who want to be known as the author of even the shortest lived of WA proposals.
International Union For Peace
Yes, it has been interesting.
International Union For Peace
Also true. In my day, I have seen some really absurd proposals.
International Union For Peace
Looks like the TABLOID Act is about to pass in the House.
This is a victory for transparency. This is a victory for democracy. This is a victory for Libertatem.
Humpheria, Condealism, International Union For Peace
How would I create a political party in this region?
Sounds good to me.
International Union For Peace
Way to sugarcoat it.
International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland
How is the TABLOID. Act detrimental? I would like to know.
Yeah I gave up on it
The solution is to give the house more power, not to take it from the board.
The party system is privatized, so you don't need any permission!
Just write a factbook entry describing your party and then announce it on the RMB. After that, it would be advisable to ask [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation] to put a short description on his factbook of political parties.
If you need any help, feel free to ask! :)
International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland
Huh?
Sweden And Finland
OK. Thank you!
It's not taking any power from the board. It's simply ensuring that board proceedings are open and transparent.
The New United States, Rateria, The American Empire In Libertatem, Sweden And Finland
Sorry about that, guys. I clicked the wrong button.
Jim Webb is a more reasonable Democrat. Opposes the Wars on Drugs and Terror, opposes raising income tax rates and supports cutting corporate taxes. He'd get my vote over many Republican candidates.
Sweden And Finland
I like him, but he'll never receive the Democratic nomination.
Sweden And Finland
#jokesyanksdontget: Jeremy Corbyn
Sweden And Finland
With a vote of 6 - 1 - 1, the TABLOID Act has passed in the House.
The New United States, Humpheria, Rateria, International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland
The only Democrat that I have a chance of voting for is Clinton, and that's only if Trump is The Republican Candidate.
Clinton has lied to the America people on several occasions, including regarding the Benghazi attack. She's also far further to the left economically then Jim Webb.
Miencraft, Sweden And Finland
Clinton is for sure going to win the Democratic candidacy. Bush and Trump are looking like they're going to get the Republican candidacy.
I feel like Trump will for sure... which is bull because Rand is the way to go as far as Republicans go...
Stupid racist neo-con Trump..
Reaganomic Nws, Sweden And Finland
Which is why you should vote Libertarian. If they get five percent of the vote, they get government funding in the next election.
Sweden And Finland
Yep. Rand has my full support. Realistically though, I think he doesn't have a chance so I'd probably go for either Bush or Rubio. They're not libertarian, but still better than stupid Trump...As for the Democrats, Jim Webb would be acceptable in my eyes. Hilary is a compulsive liar and an inconsiderate, Machievalian opportunist, while Bernie is an incompetent leftie redman who wants to turn 'Murica into a fricken pseudo-Nordic Model welfare state with higha** taxes...Rant over.
Miencraft, The Serbian Empire, Rateria, Sweden And Finland
Libertarian looks like it is going to be one of the major parties in about 20 years.
He seems to be wishy-washy on stuff like free trade though. (Fair trade...what is fair trade? Idk)
Irony is a libertarian party trying to get government funding.
No, getting five percent of the vote means the LPUS can use it to sue the hell out of the Republicans and Democrats using that money.
International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland
I think Bernie Sanders is far too left wing to even be viable.
Sweden And Finland
Trump is a publicity stunt, I don't see it
Kings Island, Humpheria, International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland
I think he's a plant by the Democrats to be frank. Trying to use him to make the GOP voters look bad.
International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland
Please, dear heavens, please do not let Hillary win.
That's the extent of my thoughts I'm willing to share on the 2016 presidential race.
Miencraft, International Union For Peace, Sweden And Finland
Man, that Trump is really very hilarious, if Bernie becomes POTUS, then America can very easily remain a superpower for the next 50 years.
I would say, you have not yet seen the actual far left, Bernie is anything but far left.
At least for American standards of economically right wing, highly authoritarian politicians Sanders is far left.
International Union For Peace
*vomits in mouth*
I'm going to need a moment to recover after reading that.
Kings Island
Really, brother capitalism has failed the world over, if you want to vote Republican/Hilary, you can but then that would be the end of US as we know it. Socialism is the next hip thing, and the only hope for humanity. Anyways Bernie is leading among democrats as of now.
Yes we should institute public policy because it is hip.
Miencraft
*Yes we should institute public policy because it is the only way forward, there is no alternative.
Remember:Change is the only constant, Capitalism has been around since Reagan and it has failed as has become clear by now, the time for change has come. It is 1929 all over again, the roarinng 20s(a.k.a the 90s and pre-2007) are over, the world is failing to recover, it's time to change.
Souces:
http://www.profitconfidential.com/economy/global-economy-slows-down-earnings-and-stock-market-to-follow/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/ct-marksjarvis-0722-biz-20150721-column.html
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/distraction-of-greece-aside-is-all-well-with-the-world-economy/articleshow/48133699.cms
*Yes we should institute public policy because it is the only way forward, there is no alternative.
Remember:Change is the only constant, Capitalism has been around since Reagan and it has failed as has become clear by now, the time for change has come. It is 1929 all over again, the roarinng 20s(a.k.a the 90s and pre-2007) are over, the world is failing to recover, it's time to change.
Souces:
http://www.profitconfidential.com/economy/global-economy-slows-down-earnings-and-stock-market-to-follow/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/ct-marksjarvis-0722-biz-20150721-column.html
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/distraction-of-greece-aside-is-all-well-with-the-world-economy/articleshow/48133699.cms
Haha funny,Hoover did not even believe in free markets. In that period in time Republicans supported protectionism. Hoover raised tariffs and other nations did the same as a reaction. This meant that the demand for goods went down which lead to businesses losing revenue. If a business loses revenue that may lead to people losing jobs. It is a myth that capitalism caused the great depression. What caused it was government barriers to the market.
Kings Island
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122576077569495545
Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha.
Miencraft, Kings Island, Pevvania, Rateria, The American Empire In Libertatem
[quote=the_american_empire_in_libertatem;12889575]Haha funny,Hoover did not even believe in free markets. In that period in time Republicans supported protectionism. Hoover raised tariffs and other nations did the same as a reaction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordney-McCumber_Tariff
Kings Island
Wow, you are quoting wsj to support capitalism, that is like quoting world socialist to support socialism, find a neutral source first, even CNN has admitted stagnation, anyways what is the first quarter GDP growth rate of US, i guess negative.
http://fee.org/resources/detail/great-myths-of-the-great-depression-pdf-and-audio
Okay but the article also states that, the great depression started due to monetary policy easing, which is the current scenario, interest rates in US have not been increased for 8 years now. Credit is cheap, the point to be noted is that capitalism has never delivered growth with tight monetary policies, so if you want growth in capitalism, that ultimately leads you to depression, thus jeopardizing the entire concept of growth in capitalism.
You're Indian, right? You of all people should recognise just how great capitalism is. Until the 1990s, India was a stagnant socialist state, and most people earned below a dollar a day. Since the early 90s, poverty has fallen from 45% to 22% as a result of market reforms, deregulation and trade liberalization. Hell, it's because of capitalism that you're criticizing it right now on your computer. Capitalism has cut world poverty in half in the last 25 years. And what do the socialists do? Bitch and complain that capitalism is putting people in poverty. And I love how you mentioned socialist Cuba when talking about poverty, a country whose GDP per capita is half of the average income of a poor American. A "poor" American has an average income of around $10,000. That makes him richer than 80% of the world population. Cuba has a low poverty rate by its own standards, but those standards are not very good, since people are poor in general. Rich people in socialist countries are poor people in capitalist countries.
Please take an economics course.
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, The American Empire In Libertatem
If it wasn't for capitalism, poor Indians would be working in farms than the IT sector...
Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria, The American Empire In Libertatem
Umm...
Capitalism has been existent since at least the 14th century.
Miencraft, Kings Island, Pevvania, The New United States, Humpheria, Right-Winged Nation, Rateria, The American Empire In Libertatem
Well the solution to that is to abolish the central bank.
Miencraft, Kings Island, Pevvania, Humpheria, The American Empire In Libertatem
Yes before 1991 people were poor, but here is one thing you missed out, people were poor because money was worthless, things were not monetized, the government owned most things and provided most things, 95% of the workers were employed by the government in state industries. Money is not everything, if you ever lived in a socialist state you would know, people had a lot of things, all these things were state issued not bought, no one had money, no one needed money.
Poverty? yeah a lot of Indians were poor, poor of what? green paper(a.k.a monney), they got what they needed, why bother with money, capitalism just provided a monetary value to things, people had state issued homes, that home was after the economic reforms of 1991 made available for sale to the market, voila the people are rich(earlier you could not put a cost to that house, because you were not allowed to sell it)
Monetizing things people own, adding that monney to people's value makes people get out of poverty, but guess what they had that thing before that asset was capitalized and yo they now have capital, in India a thousand state companies were sold, all that money was added to government coffers, capitalist logic-->the government is richer.
In Cuba money buys few things, is money a collectors item? Why would Cubans get money, and where would they get the money from? They get free transportation, free housing, free healthcare, free phones. Now would you like to collect money brother. Money =/= an awesome life, hard for someone who has lived in the US to understand, visit the Nordic countries sometime.
Economics is irrelevant to socialism, because socialism makes money useless, money is an old institution established by the monarchy to collect taxes(what the libertarians actually oppose), if you want freedom, abolish money, economics only affects people's lives when money controls their life, take the money out, and you won't need the economics.
From 1991 onwards my parents' disposable income doubled every 3 years(this is the reason capitalism finds massive support among Indian millenials and those who joined the workforce after 1991), but the current generation growing up(including me) owe no loyalty to capitalism, jobs are hard to come by, when they do our incomes are at best equal to our parents, nothing more, pre-2010 it was not rare to make triple of what your dad makes, as your first pay.
Yes let capitalism be credited for every good thing after 1991.
Before WW2, it was either feudalism or colonialism or mercantilism not capitalism, capitalism cannot exist in a non-democratic state, as I have explained before.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/does_capitalism.html
You do understand that the central bank gaurantees the USD, are you suggesting a currency like Bitcoin.
Capitalism existed way before WWII. Capitalism existed during the Industrial Revolution for certain, but it was not as regulated like now.
No.
I am suggesting that currencies be issued privately by the banks, and that currencies compete freely in the market. Free market banking worked successfully for a hundred years, and in Scotland had only a failure rate of 4/1000 (compared to like 30/1000 for England).
This is an interesting concept. But how would it work?
International Union For Peace
The only way it could work is if the US paid off all of its debts, something that isn't likely anytime soon. But the theory is that competing currencies would naturally bring the currencies in question to an equilibrium, where market demand would set its own interest rates naturally and buffer against inflation.
Miencraft, International Union For Peace
Thanks for explaining. But how would the values of each currency be set?
International Union For Peace
By market demand, again. Probably these currencies would be backed by something, maybe a mix of gold and silver. But even for fiat currencies, its values would be set by the users. Remember that the only reason $20 is worth $20 is because the majority of people believe its $20 and treat it as such.
The primary benefit of this system is that its the banks who are caring to the needs of their customers, and not the government's central planning which can only make guesses thru its models. In addition there is a liability incentive.
Miencraft, International Union For Peace
Ah, point taken. Thank you for your time.
Republic Of Minerva, International Union For Peace
Mercantilism ended in the early 19th century.
I'll remind you that Hoover decided to close the stock exchange following the crash. Had it remained open, a partial recovery would have occurred almost immediately.
Instead, the closure led to a panic and a run on the banks, which led to banks going bankrupt and calling in loans from businesses and individuals, which led to massive closure and the Great Depression.
Furthermore, the crash would not have occurred without protectionist policies. The crisis was entirely due to government intervention.
Miencraft, Pevvania
False. Taxes in early history were collected in goods such as grain and beer as well as in money. Currency is necessary as a means of exchange to simplify complex transactions.
You're "the state provides everything" argument is silly. The Indian government never had the resourced to care for the whole population, and the Cuban and North Korean people are impoverished.
Rateria
Mien, when are we opening up your department again? We've got folks waiting.
I'm on break at work, I'll explain my point of view later on today.
Does anyone have tips for my factbook?
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.