Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Have the afternoon you have.
You're damn right I will
Hooray, the Internet's back! Peasants: return to your townships and await further instructions.
But why is a price floor needed to guarantee a 'bare minimum' for these people? Wouldn't companies just compensate low-skilled workers for the value of their labour, as they do in all other markets?
Anyone want to make a suggestion for Libertatem Radio?
I have a suggestion.
Juodaan Viinaa by Korpiklaani
http://youtu.be/6z4DRPG7rbc
"I do not find fear to be an effective motivator." - Gustavo Fring.
Exams are killing me today
"I'm Reading A Book" by Julian Smith
Even though he threatens to kill Walt's entire family multiple times
Volunteers- Jefferson airplane
The Smiths!
Family Bible by George Jones
Post self-deleted by Ankha.
Ankha Ipianed!
What??
You deleted a post. A common practice of Ipian.
Oh. Sorry
I enjoy the fact that "ipaning" is a thing now.
I know, but ipianing is better than lacking.....JK
That's a great video by the way. I love how that kid just breaks Pelosi
Gus isn't even my favorite character in that show.
He's beyond that. He's my favorite character in all of television.
Well, kinda tied between him and Tyrion Lannister, but ignoring him, it's definitely Gus.
He even does that thing that happens in the Season 4 finale amazingly.
I'm, uh, assuming that you haven't seen that episode, Pev, so I won't say things.
I've only watched up to S4 E1 so far. I love the actor who plays him - Giancarlo Esposito. He plays a fantastic character in the TV series Revolution. Did anyone here watch that?
So the Conservative Front won the elections.
Pick what group in the CF is going to Represent them.
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=298946
It was an offer I couldn't refuse, Lack.
EU4 just got confusing.
A vassal went to war with me because they wanted independence.
Realizing I really didn't need them anyways, I went to negotiate with them and grant them independence in exchange for ending the war.
Apparently, they're not willing to negotiate for independence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7yGvpWVsI&feature=youtu.be&t=5s
Interesting thread on the forums right now: Pinochet vs. Allende. Which one did more good for Chile? I certainly know where I stand on it.
*Lauches a rogue missle at Miencraft's nation for teh lulz*
I posted my position. Pinochet, Pinochet, Pinochet.
It's 1539 and I just created the Kingdom of Russia out of Muscovy five years ago.
Dahell you doin' with missiles.
I am a time traveler. Since you are on an alternative timeline, I can eliminate you for "teh lulz" and experience no time paradoxes or moral repercussions.
*Puts on utilitarian hat*
I have to agree. Allende was an incompetent land-grabber whose destructive economic policies plunged millions into despair. Pinochet was most certainly an asahole, but his pro-market domestic policies have taken Chile to enormous heights of success. Anyone who denies this is being intellectually dishonest. There's a reason so many of his 'socialist' successors have strengthened and expanded Pinochet's reforms.
Salvador Allende was the better of the two in my opinion.
"But Pev, RAPE DOGS!"
This seems logical, since Ivan IV hasn't become Prince yet.
Go ahead, then.
While he was an incompetent leader and enacted failing socialistic policies. Pinochet overthrew the elected socialist Unidad Popular government of President Salvador Allende and ended civilian rule. Of course he then prosecuted political opponents.Various reports and investigations claim that between 1,200 and 3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 people were interned and as many as 30,000 were tortured during the time Pinochet was in government.
Anyhow. His economic policies were overall good but the drastic changes over that short period led to major income inequality which might've been prevented if the changes were enacted slower.
And Obama kills people with drones en masse.
But it's alright if they aren't citizens, amirite?
Not to mention Obama hasn't done anything except deliver Bush's piecemeal promise whilst expanding other policies.
The 300% inflation rate in 1973 doesn't agree with you.
Income inequality is something that none of us should care about at all. Why would I care if a rising tide is taking the yachts higher? Income inequality is irrelevant, and probably desirable.
What?
Anyone have suggestions on what my national anthem should be?
Much Obama....
Little Chilean Presidents
You should care. I'm going by which I would rather live in. An economic sh*t state where I had a choice and could speak my mind? Or a productive state where speaking against the government I'd get shot?
I mean don't get me wrong. His economic policies were much better. However in a non- democratic state is a good economy really better then a poor country where you did have democracy?
I'd have to agree. Pinochet was an @$$hole, but he was economically right. Being an @$$hole doesn't necessarily make a person wrong.
Wat. At first TTA, and now you?!
It's more than just a good economy - it's having the freedom to plan your own life. Your choices in the marketplace define your whole life. When those choices are made for you by some faceless bureaucrats hundreds of miles away, democracy means nothing. Democracy didn't help the thousands of Japanese Americans interned by FDR. Democracy empowers the majority, who are in most cases politically and economically illiterate.
I'd take a free market state minus political freedoms. If the socialists control your property, they control your livelihood and action, without directly having to impose social regulations. It's masked authoritarianism.
An ***hole who killed those who didn't support his regime.
^this guy
Look here. The basic if this is that (Forgive me I Can't remember names) The Right-wing guy just killed you if you didn't agree wuth him. That's not minus political freedoms. It's 0 political freedoms.
How does that fit this topic?
I believe we should attribute lives lost because of lost opportunity in the market to Allende. I don't have the statistic, but judging from other socialist governments, the mortality rate was probably pretty high.
Pev. Can you explain in better terms more relevant to the Chile thing?
Hey! Hey Pev! Guess what ...................................FDR
I'd agree with him. Especially if he protects my business.
Okay a government that intentionally kills vs a government that made poor choices and the consequence was the Death of the citizens.
Gtg
A government doesn't make "right" choices. Rights are always being violated, but I'd rather have a few worthless socialists shot or thrown in jail then have a society go through mass starvation and systemic poverty because of the State.
A few? You understand there were thousands killed...Shooting someone for their beliefs is an infringement of THE MOST BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT.
Kazan must not want their independence from my Russian empire thingy.
*not getting involved in debate like I should*
What I'm trying to say, TTA, is that although the Pinochet regime was an empowered state that murdered thousands and suppressed political speech, it protected private property rights in other regards. And property rights are the foundation of all other rights. The free-market reforms of the 70s and 80s actually played a strong part in weakening the power of the military junta, and became a solid foundation for the republic we see today.
Allende's Chile may have allowed you to speak your mind, but who gives a damn about free speech when your property is being legally expropriated, your income robbed and your business torn apart by government? Political rights don't mean anything when your whole life is literally being stolen from you. Sure, you're free to complain about it, and free to stand for office to change things, and free to challenge the state in the courts. But you cannot individually protect yourself.
Chile was better under Pinochet because individuals could keep their property and define their own lives. Allende, who was a deeply corrupt leader who took Soviet money and violated the Constitution frequently, may have allowed you to speak out against him but that was because he had the apparatus of the state on his side. Or at least he did initially.
There are no rights absent property rights. Socialists forgo those. Therefore, socialists have no rights.
Yes but in one you have the ability to change it. The other you don't have power to change it.
^
I disagree. Property rights are the most basic human rights. A) you own your thoughts, b) you own yourself, c) you own your property, so people can't just come onto it and tell you how much of a worthless person you are. You'd kick them out.
This applies to everything else. Open Carry Texas doesn't know how much it's harming the gun rights movement right now by bringing machine guns into restaurants. But these restaurants have every right to them away gun owners, or anybody else for that matter.
Okay.
"I can't own this land freely. However I can try to change the economic policies and not die."
"I own this land freely. However my friends disliked the government and got shot."
Which sounds more appealing?
But Pinochet already gave me my property rights, what more could I ask for? I have nothing to say against him.
My friends wouldn't have been shot, only my enemies.
'Trying to change' a country's's economic policies is much harder than it sounds. It's like trying to convince millions of happy, oblivious slaves to give you permission to unchain yourself.
Pinochet's market reforms were indispensable in creating a long-lasting democratic republic.
The fact that there's no elections, No freedom of speech, No freedom of expression and you see people get killed by the government.
Look. It boils down to this.
Would you rather own property yourself
or
Have Political and Social freedoms
Don't care about elections, my guy's in power. A minor setback, but mainly only for socialists. Please, don't give me the expression bullshit. I see a few Commies get killed for their advocacy of the worst ideology in history. Oh I'm so sad.
I think the primary danger of 'good' dictatorships - if there is such a thing - is that when their leader dies political uncertainty comes. A new dictator may lack the leadership capabilities of the previous one, and the government may collapse; or perhaps he may mismanage the economy and that will collapse.
But Pinochet created an economy that complimented and even welcomed republican government. Planned economies are overwhelmingly politicised, but market economies do not need hierarchical management. Voluntary exchange weakened the military junta and made it irrelevant. Democratic change was the only logical step - and it would've been politically impossible for central planners to get back into government.
See the Pinochet thread. One of main criticisms against him is that he used "rape dogs."
Don't ask...
The former
Don't joke about that.
1. Nazism was the worst
2. Is it very libertarian to want to restrict rights of a certain group?
It shouldn't be downplayed how brutal the Pinochet regime was towards subversives. State killing of certain groups is an obvious violation of property rights, and in its first several years of power the military junta was extremely fascistic. But the marketisation of Chile gradually eroded the power of the state to the point that both political freedoms and property rights are protected.
And again. The lefty guy was terrible economically. No way around that. His policies were dreadful. However he did maintain political and social freedom.
Nazism: 70 million deaths (Holocaust+World War II)
Communism: 100 million+ deaths
Nazism: Planned killing of certain people
Communism: Very few died because of being against the government. They were unintended deaths.
Statistically incorrect. I'll say they're equivalent, but they're ALL socialists.
I'd rather have some semblance of rights in property than have them eliminated.
The economic system of socialism is the largest planned demacide in human history.
Pol Pot, Gulags, Cultural Revolution, etc. learn some education.
Also for Pev, repetition is the key to success.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
That made my day.
Don't forget Stalins Purges and Tiananmen square.
....Oh yeah...
Okay so State Socialism and "non marxist\Leninist" Communism might've been worse.
5 year plan.....
Not intentional but fits somewhat.
Those too, of course. Hitler and the Nazis were socialists as well. I'm equating them. Isn't that what socialism is all about? Equality?
Education must be learned, no?
Question of the Day: does Jesse Ventura know what he's talking about? Has he ever?
No....
National Socialists (Nazi's) are actually more of Controlled Capitalism then Planned Economy.
Course I dislike both...so I'm treat them equally in that aspect.
He is crazy, I know the Federal Government has done Crimes against the Citizens of the United States but jesse just thinks beyond the Crimes.
I saw an episode of him talking about Time Travel and 9/11 being the government's doing.
Correction, Against the Free World*
Both are forms of socialism. Fascism is just a more effective and practical way to do it. In the end its all State control over the means of production, resources, and property. "Controlled Capitalism" is a contradiction in terms. Laissez-faire is diametrically opposed to both communism and national socialism, and is the odd one out of the three.
Wait...so Economically I'm Centrist which is fascist on some Spectrums
What....?
To all the minority people here, I'd like to point out the RLP only holds two seats on the Board as of now.
Yes, the economic system of fascism (i.e. corporativism/corporatism) is achieved through regulation, a welfare state, and other quasi socialist programs. Fascism is indirect control. Yes, you are an economic fascist. You are a fascist minus the racism and nationalism (I believe?).
Congrats, fascist.
Look. There's four types in my book (Not everyone's)
Leave alone- True Capitalism
Controlled Capitalism- Twisted and Regulated Capitalism
Mixed Economics-....Duh..
Planned Economics - Commies
The latter three are all the same because of one word in the last: PLANNED. The State CONTROLS economics, whether directly or indirectly, in any system other than laissez-faire. Fascism is the indirect species of socialism.
...Military spending is on the increase, the military is blowing up any threat to employment within the nation, space research funding has hit a recent high while several military bases are being closed down...
No they aren't. They vary due to the degree.
Controlled Capitalism leaves some restrictions and lets it free.
Mixed? Me!
Planned leaves total control under government.
Look, fascist, if you allow the State any degree of control over the economy then its "degree" is completely arbitrary and will tend to expand, as is the trend, until it is forced to privatize or it collapses.
I'm talking about principles in economics and the fundamental differences. Laissez faire/free markets and Statism are the only two alternatives.
What was the point of this...?
Maybe he is saving enough money to move his entire nation into space.
Why doesn't the Army just arrest the Traitors in Washington Instead?
New caucuses:
Majority: Miencraft (RLP), TNUS (RLP), Amarican (PP)
Minority: RRRG (I), Lack there of (LP)
By using NASA, a government program?! RENT SEEKING!
They can't I don't think without a Coup....
I am not fascist. I am Left Centre who is beginning to lean Radical Centrist.
This is not true. The Degree can stay the same. And Living in a "Leave Alone" Vs. Statism only situation shows how centered on one point only you are....Economics isn't a This or This. It has many different forms.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.