Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
I can.
First thing. Message Pevvania about joining the House. After that you can check out our political parties and can join one if you wish. (I suggest the Democratic-Republican Party).
After that you can get involved in our RMB conversations and what-not
If you want, you can help us in raids.
.......There's this too.......(-_-)
Haha.
Welcome to Libertatem! :)
I already have a raid planned. Do you wish to join?
Busy now, sorry.
Welcome to Libertatem! If i can help in anyway feel free to ask.
The Board and it's Chairman is available for any questions you may have. And welcome to our esteemed home. I also recommend you apply for the House and join a party. Of course, your best choice there is going to be the RLP. You sir, are home.
Plenty of people living outside of the US or UK that could not get access to the specialist shops (and hence would have had to wait for several months for the possibility that you might, maybe, get a repair) bought new xboxes instead. Whether this was intentional or not is probably impossible to determine from evidence, but I'd wager they were aware of it.
Furthermore, the specialist shops would only repair your console if it was within warranty which, IIRC, started off at only 1 year with the first consoles. Extended warranty was an option, but also required you to pay up. Later versions of the console gave you a slightly longer warranty (3 years, IIRC) but also required you to pay up for extended warranty. Either way, microsoft was making money off of their shoddy workmanship because they knew they had a product people loved.
The private sector is motivated by profit, not by the motive to help people. Perhaps this is a personal thing, but I cannot trust a person/entity who's motivation to help me is driven by their desire to part me from my money. With government entities, they have already received their annual budgets from the government, hence their only incentives when helping me are their objectives as government entities - be it to put out the fire in my house or to make me healthy again if I'm ill.
And he is an incredibly remarkable man for it. My own parents have gone from working class to upper middle class in one generation too, government grants having given them the opportunity (especially in my mother's case) to do so initially, hard work and long hours having done the rest.
However, imagine if your father could not have gotten a job to pay for college, at all. Is it fair that such a remarkable human being should have been left to rot as a cleaner for the rest of his life?
I'm not saying your father was lucky in any way, but I'm sure there are people out there equally as willing to work hard to improve themselves that are stuck for lack of a job or way to get a job.
I strongly disagree with the concept of an inherent goodness (or badness for that matter) of human beings. We are not essentially anything other than selfish (which is, I might add, contrary to the bible is not a good or evil trait). Humans brought up with very little human contact struggle to empathize with other humans . Empathy and "goodness" is learnt and conditioned by society, in my opinion.
With regards to the US's 'compassion rate', a whole myriad of factors could contribute to that. Anything from higher levels of religiousness to a greater number of multi millionaires/billionaires could greatly affect that statistic. Unless it can conclusively be narrowed down that it is the difference in welfare spending that causes the difference in 'compassion rates' as opposed to anything else, I'm afraid I can't accept that particular correlation.
I'm no economist and haven't got the time right now to research a counter argument based on economic grounds, I shan't contest your economic statements.
However, the abolition of the minimum wage, to me, opens the door for wide scale abuse of employees on a massive scale. Any rational human being in command of a business (given, no such human being exists) will attempt to get the most work out of his/her employees for the least amount of expenditure (read, wages) possible. Said rational human being could easily trap employees in debt cycles, ensuring permanent employment for minimal wages. This amounts to slavery. To me, a society that would allow the slavery of even a tiny amount of its population is dystopian.
A very good point, conceded.
I do feel it necessary to point out that the government could do a similar job if it simply taxed the stagnant wealth and then re-invested it into large scale public works projects (think Nazi Germany's Autobahns or America's Space Race - both created large numbers of jobs and the latter created a ton of useful technology).
After all, the Banks don't always invest in the right places... as 2008 so nicely showed us :P
I don't ascribe to the concept of "taxes are theft". To me they're just a direct way to fairly redistribute the wealth of a nation from those that don't really need it to those that really really do.
Indeed they are not freedoms, they are things to be free of.
To me they are essential rights, rights that any moral government should secure for its citizens. I can find no reason to deny anybody who has not committed a crime the right to food, clean water, health or shelter. There is a subtle but extremely important difference between "Freedom To" and "Freedom From". Personally, I find "Freedom From"s to be the more important, and am even happy to sacrifice some "Freedom To"s for the guarantee of the former. Most Libertarians, I'd wager, are the exact opposite.
[B]Furthermore, the specialist shops would only repair your console if it was within warranty which, IIRC, started off at only 1 year with the first consoles.[/B] Wrong. I've repaired many xbox 360s out of warranty at a "specialty shop". Just sayin'. :)
We didn't have any specialty shops where I live...
Also, how can I take you seriously with that FLAG! D: X) JK :P
Look what's happening to these commie regions:
This region too:
That is evidence that there is not only a significant amount of fascist activity on NationStates, but that it is also very dangerous. While they may have chosen targets we might, under certain circumstances, have taken, we must remember that we are ideologically opposed to them.
Correct :)
Also. I have a new idea for the regional map. Instead of doing a typical world map, we should submit, drawings or maps of what we want our nations look like.
Also, if you are having trouble figuring out what you want your nation to look like, this might help:
http://donjon.bin.sh/world/
Will respond to that later, Pax.
Good job on the raids, Blahb. You're doing very well for us "capitalist nobodies".
Okay. I see...This is very very bad. We need to retake those regions (and preferably hand them back over to the Commies)
Leave 'em to rot, I say.
Or we help....
That contradicts our values. We fight fascists too, but not if they're cutting down the size of the Empire.
So we just let our (More incorrect) enemies expand their empire so long as they attack another of our enemies?
Let our enemies fight each other. I mean why not? Why should we protect our enemiesÂ… from other enemies? That doesn't make a ton of sense. We should stay out of this.
I think we should stay out of this fight unless we are attacked.
Then you'd like the Democratic-Republican Party. We believe in Non-Interventionism unless attacked.
Or we could attack the commie regions when the fascists have weakened them and take them for our own.
.......That's not exactly what I meant.....Forget attacking them. Lets just stay home in our region and roast Weenies.
Now that is what I call a good idea :)
FUN FACT: We are here to contribute to the needs of the region as a whole, not just your political ideology; Also, why roast weenies when we could celebrate our anti-Cominternesque victories with a KEGGER! I want to see Pevvania do a keg-stand.
FUN FACT: How would the region benefit by attacking others then? How does this region Benefit from attacking anyone unless they attack first?
A Kegger? What the heck is a KEGGER?
1.beer party: a party at which beer is served from kegs.......I see No Culture there besides idiots getting drunk and killing themselves by driving under the Influence after the party.
I understand it was founded on that. But you still don't explain how IT THE REGION. Since you want only things that the region needs.
Apparently you are a stranger to the subtle art of sarcasm,(and realistic political ideologies, but that is besides the point.) Also, I fail to see how adhering to the region's moral foundation doesn't constitute a need.
A Moral foundation was a region against Communism.......A need is something that a region can't survive without. This region would and could survive if we never attacked a Commie again.
And how are my Political ideologies unrealistic?
A region couldn't survive if it's core ideologies were corrupted. It is that simple. Also, communism and most forms of socialism are generally accepted as being unfitting for a region where the people have anything resembling a human brain; as people generally enjoy owning things and you know, having freedom. That, in short, makes socialism idealistic and inapplicable in our world.
Generally accepted by who? A whole 82 Nations plus your maybe 5-6 libertarian Allies? That's like what Maybe 200 Nations? Ohhhh wait there's puppets too.
Socialism is Generally accepted amongst people who aren't
Fascists.
Right-Wingers
or Americans.
See this is where most make their mistakes. Here ya go.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism. As you see you are thinking of Socialism as the same as Communism which it isn't. Socialism isn't a form where all rights are taken away.
Let's calm it down here, folks. Debate is good, unfriendly discourse is not.
And also: fascism is a form of socialism. Just sayin'.
No. It isn't. There is a Big Difference between Socialism and National Socialism (Which is what the Fascists have)
"National socialism" was simply an artificial concept invented to dupe the German workers. Once fascists came to power, they revealed themselves as yet another group of capitalists, except with ultra-nationalist tendencies and a higher focus on the state.
What Pev is trying to say is that fascists are similar enough to our targets that, in all honesty, they should also be our targets. (Right?)
Fascists and Socialists aren't similar at all.....
Socialists and Anarchists are!
Socialists and Centrists are!
Socialists and Democracy Lovers are!
But not Faccies and Soccies.
The Anti-Corporatist Party notes that Right Wing Uprising targets leftist regions regardless of whether or not they lean libertarian. While their actions have been helpful on the communist front by sheer coincidence, bear in mind that they also represent the offensive force of the totalitarian front, and are our ideological adversaries.
We must respond to the oppressive actions of tyrants on both the left and the right, and we haven't done nearly enough to defend free regions from the authoritarian right or even center. ACOP recommends including weak fascist targets in military operations, as they are about as numerous as weak communist targets.
That is true, however, I do not view socialism and communism as the same concept. I understand that communism is far more extreme than socialism, but I say socialism instead of communism to avoid the negative connotation of the word communism that is perpetuated by modern society, so as not to offend socialists, suck as yourself. Also, the most recent polls show that socialism has a favorability of around twenty four percent.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2012/favorables_socialism_24_capitalism_68
So in simple, crude terms, go suck an egg. :-)
For the love of God (or, most likely, your lack thereof) - we're trying to compromise here. All you're doing is giving us fewer reasons to target fascist regions.
Read the first part of those reports.
"Most Americans continue to have favorable opinions of capitalism and the free enterprise system.
However, just 24% have a favorable opinion of socialism. "
Now re-read what I just wrote.
Oops, I accidentally wrote "Suck as yourself" in what is literally the most hilarious typo of all time. Way to go, me.
I'm Mormon. I have a strict belief in a God.
So when you say most people, you mean less than a quarter. Twenty four percent.
America's not the only nation in the World....
This Mises article addresses the widely-believed fallacy: http://mises.org/daily/1937
I also wrote an essay (which needs updating) on the subject about a year ago: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=pevvania/detail=factbook/id=133944
Put simply, the Nazi economy was planned and operated along the lines of the Soviet apparatus, although it had not managed to progress to a higher stage of totalitarianism in its lifetime, despite the wishes of Hitler and Goebbels, who privately and publicly expressed their revulsion for capitalism and aimed to institute a fully planned economy after the war's end.
While not all of the economy was in the hands of the government, there was no free exchange of goods and services at all. Capital controls made sure that state-backed corporations produced what the regime wanted (i.e. military supplies), with Nazi 'kommissars' often forcibly nationalising several businesses. Foreign imports were nearly entirely stopped. The regime embarked on huge public works programs - such as the Autobahn Project - to reach full employment. Massive taxes were enacted. Hitler expanded the nation's health service to all 'pure' citizens. The banking, press, armaments and food distributions industries were all effectively nationalised.
National Socialism differs from its international counterpart in that it de-emphasises the need for economic equality and more towards racial unity. A state as strong as the fascist one is incompatible with capitalism, as it effectively eliminated property rights and transferred their ownership to the state.
In effect, Nazi Germany was indeed a state socialist nation.
Mmk....fair enough.....I'm not an Expert on what happened in 1933-1945 to Germany.
They are completely similar in their means and ends, but only differ on their principles.
Socialism cannot really exist within anarchy. Please refer to this quaint little drawing I made to illustrate my point: http://i.imgur.com/6b1UMSw.png
Centrist is a very broad term that can be used in a range of contexts. You could apply the term to corporatists, Keynesians, social democrats or American moderates. You cannot compare the term to socialist.
Socialism is incompatible with democracy. Control of the production of wealth is the control of human life itself; it matters not whether democratic institutions are in place or not, socialism must always devolve into power's transferral to a central planner.
You mean to tell me that if you take everyone in America and every right winger in the world, you won't have a vast majority?
1. Social anarchism (also called socialist anarchism or anarchist socialism or anarcho-socialism) is generally considered to be the branch of anarchism which sees individual freedom as being dependent upon mutual aid. Social anarchist thought generally emphasizes community and social equality.
2. Moderation is the idea that Capitalism and Socialism can work together. So you can indeed.
3.Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system.
America is one of those strange places where the people have such strong views that are not reflected in their representatives.
....The way I see it? No.
Unlike Americans many Europeans, South Americans and others understand Socialism.
The sad part is...This isn't true. Most people believe in what their representatives give. Otherwise There wouldn't be Two Parties. There would be several.
1. & 3. These are theoretical ideologies, but I am addressing their results in practicality. Socialism literally cannot exist without coercion, and coercion flies in the face of self-governance and democracy.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism
Again...Not true. Socialism is the idea of the Government controlling 'Most" but not all the Economy. They don't offer any less freedom besides that.
A democratic political system can exist alongside a socialist economic system.
So can an Anarchic-Socialist system.
And the reason they are only Theoretical? Because people like you prevent people from ACTUALLY TRYING to see if these will work.
I am actually really all set with the thick headed liberal fruitcakes around here trying to violently bludgeon the gorgeous libertarian leaning this region was founded upon. I can't thoroughly articulate the fact that if you show the people here a group of weakened radical communist regions, then you can't expect the people here to not want to attack them. That is just how it goes.
I'm very much not Liberal Politically. Economically I am Socialist. And really Liberalism is a term dealing with people liking Democracy. America seems to have all it's beliefs messed up.....
How the heck am I Violently attacking or bullying libertarian Leanings when I am simply speaking about how Socialism isn't evil.....or bad...
I can......
What you are describing is social democracy, which showed its failures in the 1970s. I'm a Brit, I should know - we were known as the 'Sick Man of Europe' before Thatcher came in.
Socialism, at its core, means communal control of the means of production. The only way the means of production can be truly controlled by a community would mean a democratic plan that would have to be agreed upon by a majority of the workers of that community to evenly distribute wealth. This would be much more difficult in practice than in thought to have so many hundreds or thousands of minds agreeing on all the kinks and clauses of a single plan. Complaints would rise that too much was being granted in some people and too little being granted to others. As the inefficiencies of the plan would become evident and economic inequality grow, with divisions between the workers becoming ever more threatening, calls would surmount for a small unelected commission of planners - or just one - to efficiently organise the production and distribution of wealth, while still maintaining the facade of democracy. An assembly could exist alongside an economic planner, but if you control what goes into a territory, what goes out and how resources are distributed you control human life itself. So democracy and socialism are incompatible.
Please, Alchandria, be respectful to others. I have many socialist friends IRL who I treat with dignity in debate, and you may be alienating potential voters in the next election cycle.
...Thatcher? Oh gosh....
Representative Democracy like America has.....
And Capitalism Magically solves this problem? No. As I say daily. Socialism and Capitalism both have flaws, yet both have reddeming qualities. Which is why I don't understand why people think Capitalism is 'The Holy Light" of Economics.
Or we could have Representation..... Like Congress.....
....Not what socialism is.
The basic principle of Socialism is that: All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Large-scale industries are collective efforts and thus the returns from these industries must benefit society as a whole.
Coordination principles are: Planned-Socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.
Yes socialism controls where things go. But it isn't that different then Capitalism. From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. The main difference is the Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.(Which is Possible and not bad)
Socialistic principles also include Two kinds of property, personal property, such as houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property includes factories, and means of production owned by the state but with worker control.
Also Socialism Can coexist with different political systems. Most socialists advocate participatory democracy, some (Social Democrats) advocate parliamentary democracy, and Marxist-Leninists advocate "Democratic centralism".
I fail to see how calling someone a fruitcake is disrespectful, but I'll try a little harder to keep myself decent towards others.
Interesting. Communists tend to call it state capitalism.
Having study the Nazi Economy, I'd agree this is a good premise, and one I hadn't considered or given thought to.
In calling it socialism you must however acknowledge therefore that socialism has some economic merits (under certain circumstances)? The Nazi economy came damned close to overheating pre-WW2, if it had failed it would have done so due to its own success. While, admittedly, the standard of living remained static (and even dropped in some areas) for most Germans, what the country achieved is unprecedented, perhaps even impossible under capitalism. Germany succeeded in making one of the most efficient war machines humanity has ever had the capacity to mobilize from the wreckage of what emerged from the treaty of Versailles. It was technologically superior to the allies all the way through the war and, IIRC, performed much better in combat than any of the allied powers (on a kill for kill basis).
Germany's failures were in how it managed and applied its resources - courtesy of shoddy leadership and poor decision making - not in how it produced them.
Lemme just poke in for a moment with some nice news.
"Miencraft was ranked in the Top 1% of the world for Lowest Overall Tax Burden (last census: Top 5%)."
Yay.
" The People's Republic of Nolth Kolea of the region SUPERFUNNORTHKOREALAND agreed to construct embassies."
Wut wut in the but but...?
No seriously.
I don
I don't even know what to say about this.....The name of that region....
You're really missing the point of what I'm saying. Socialism relies on planning, but planning cannot occur outside a strong, unelected body. If this unelected body served alongside, say, Congress, it would completely sap the power of Congress as it controls the distribution of wealth. A central planner would control what information goes to the Congressmen, the food that's distributed to them - their very livelihoods, and that of all others, would depend upon the planner. The planner could easily invalidate the power of Congress by cutting off the food supply to Washington DC, or ordering the erection of an impenetrable wall around the city. Education of individuals would be completely reliant upon the distributions of the planner, who would decide what people are taught and when. The planner would control what is distributed to the police and the military, therefore controlling them. I'll repeat the mantra: control of the production of wealth is control of human life itself.
Capitalism is different in that control of the means of production is malleable. This of course is not fully seen in contemporary markets - where state-enforced monopolies often control major sectors of the economy like energy - but there is definitely a 'liquid' aspect of most market processes. We see companies fall to competition very often, not just from other corporations but small businesses and startups. Socialism is the top-down organisation of wealth; capitalism is the bottom-up organisation of wealth.
[quote=pevvania;5345938]You're really missing the point of what I'm saying. Socialism relies on planning, but planning cannot occur outside a strong, unelected body.quote]
Tell me how Planning can't occur in an Elected body?
[quote=pevvania;5345938]If this unelected body served alongside, say, Congress, it would completely sap the power of Congress as it controls the distribution of wealth. A central planner would control what information goes to the Congressmen, the food that's distributed to them - their very livelihoods, and that of all others, would depend upon the planner. quote]
Again why can't it be Elected Planner's or have Congress go and all ready have that power.
[quote=pevvania;5345938]The planner could easily invalidate the power of Congress by cutting off the food supply to Washington DC, or ordering the erection of an impenetrable wall around the city. [/quote]
Assuming the Planners would be in D.C. Look. We can argue this point all day. What we do is make a commission of Elected individuals to do this. One from each state. That is 50 Representatives.
[quote=pevvania;5345938]Education of individuals would be completely reliant upon the distributions of the planner, who would decide what people are taught and when. The planner would control what is distributed to the police and the military, therefore controlling them. I'll repeat the mantra: control of the production of wealth is control of human life itself.
[/quote]
That's why we have different agencies to deal with the Military. Put a law in effect saying that the Planners can't provide or not provide to the military sounds good. In fact. Why do we need a military? It's not like we need 2/4's of the military we have. We need to cut military spending if anything.
[quote=pevvania;5345938]
Capitalism is different in that control of the means of production is malleable. This of course is not fully seen in contemporary markets - where state-enforced monopolies often control major sectors of the economy like energy - but there is definitely a 'liquid' aspect of most market processes. We see companies fall to competition very often, not just from other corporations but small businesses and startups. Socialism is the top-down organisation of wealth; capitalism is the bottom-up organisation of wealth. [/quote]
This is why we do this. And This has been what I have been trying to say from the start.....-_-
-Government Controls Wages
-Government Controls Energy,Water, Public Services, Education, Prison Sytem ECT.
-Privatize Small stores.
-Break-up of overly powerful business(Not WALMART OR THOSE LIKE IT. I mean the BIG ones)
----------------------------------------------
How we do that? Two Ways
-Congress can do that
-An elected commission of 50 representatives to a planning committee which writes up it's ideas then sends them to a Judicial branch which then sends it to the executive.
I'm not saying I want COMPLETE Socialism. I say we need a Mixture of Capitalism and Socialism which can exist in a Democracy.
I wouldn't call it the 'most efficient' war machine... it incurred humungous debts that left the economy in ruins post-war. It was an industrial achievement for such quick rearmament, but it was extremely short-sighted. Hitler produced nowhere near enough planes to defeat Britain'S air force, and he 'forgot' to adapt his military equipment for the Soviet winter. I think any ideology can plausibly work in the short-term - as Stalinism did in Russia and Keynesianism did in Britain - but none of these ideologies could stand the test of time.
Time Alliance, will reply to you and to Pax's earlier post when I get back from college.
Okay. Have a great day.
Could I have a source for the bit in italics please?
As for efficiency I was referring to combat efficiency. In both infantry engagements and armoured engagements, Germany was able to maintain favourable success ratios (and kill ratios) throughout the war. When a force of Germans and Allies met on an equal footing, more often than not it was the Germans that had the advantage, statistically speaking. The Western allies relied on air superiority (or the US's ability to spam Shermans) to change the tide of many of their engagements, time and time again. Russia relied on manpower and the ability to take double the casualties (or more) to get the job done.
It's lack of sustainability was largely because it over-heated the economy. A less ambitious rearmament over a longer period of time combined with greater investment into public works would have avoided this.
As I stated in my post, these were issues of piss poor political leadership trying to muscle in on things they knew nothing about. The Battle of Britain was lost as soon as the war in the atlantic was. Germany's Uboats were the only thing that could have won the battle of Britain. The air war was at best a distraction, militarily speaking. Although it gets the spotlight in for its glory and the revolutionary use of radar, the large scale bombing had a negligible effect on Britain's industrial capacity, and furthermore provided only a small small threat to Britain's main form of defence - it's navy.
With one of the most powerful navies on the planet at the time, Britain could have crushed Operation Sealion (the invasion of Britain) any way you cut it. Germany did not have the landing ships, navy or expertise to pull off an amphibious landing. The preparations they made were botched and rushed, and ultimately would have failed.
As for the lack of planes and tanks produced by Germany throughout various points in the war, the principal reason for this is that Hitler had insisted on placing military men in charge of industrial production. These men demanded that the army have the most up to date technology available at the time to their soldiers, frustrating the developments of efficient mass-production of any given model of tank or plane (as the models were constantly updated). Poor political leadership messed up industrial production, not socialism or Germany's industrial model.
With regards to Germany's lack of a winter-specialized army, the explanation is, once again, Hitler done goofed. The original plan for Operation Barbarossa was to invade at the end in Spring, giving the German army roughly 7 months before the Russian winter hit with its full force. However, Hitler dawdled and the attack was delayed by over a month. Now, normally this would be relatively inconsequential, but when we consider that with a month's advance the German army could have actually reached Moscow before the worst of the winter hit, it becomes clear that the month's dawdling potentially cost Hitler his victory on the eastern front.
The war on the eastern front, through both design and (arguably) naivety was never thought to last long enough for the Russian winter to come about. The name of the game was Blitzkrieg, hence Germany's failure to equip its troops suitably for the Russian winter.
As is, Germany achieved a staggering thirteen to one casualty ratio in Operation Barbarossa, even when we consider Russia's unpreparedness, lack of equipment and poor officer pedigree (due to the Stalin's paranoid purges) it's a pretty impressive statistic.
An unfair analysis of Nazism. It did not collapse of its own accord a la the Soviet Union, but rather through defeat. While I do not in any way support its key aspects, it had the potential to last a very long time, converting an increasingly brainwashed population to its cause. Granted, this does not guarantee it would have, but we cannot assure either way whether it would or would not have been able to withstand the test of time given the information available.
While it can be argued that because war was a key aspect of Nazi ideology it was therefore bound to fail, this is not true. A hypothetical Nazi state that had made fewer mistakes and had less meddling politicians in its industry and military decisions might well have survived world war two, and continued for long enough to continue waging war elsewhere.
I hello everybody. I have a raid planned. If anybody wishes to join me, please TG me.
I have to come up with a comprehensive electoral reform plan for England - including the creation of new assemblies for different provinces, which are also new - for a mock Parliamentary commission in politics class in 30-60 minutes, which I'm presenting tomorrow. So I'll get back to y'all later! ^_^
I also have my own raid planned, and I need a couple of troopers at most. Please telegram me for information and direction.
AY MANG
You seem a bit familiar. Do you have any ties with Bundabunda?
Can someone do sone recruiting? I'll be completely tied up this weekend.
I'll volunteer.
I'll still buy those telegrams whenever you want.. just need the recruitment message.
A new bill has been proposed about the legalization of Gay Marriage in Einsiev. The polls are open and the voting begins now.
Should Gay Marriage be legalized in Einsiev?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Abstain
A. Yes.
D. Leave it to the states/provinces
So far, one yes, and one abstain.
CI, I'll count yours as abstain.
I love delegating legislation, though. It would be interesting to see a society where all communities are compatible, but different.
I wonder what would happen if for every province in Einsiev that bans gay marriage, there'd be another that legalizes only gay marriage. :P
That, my friend, is illegal. A bill has been proposed also to let provinces decide for themselves. But for now they abide mostly by what the federal government says.
This.
So what happens when a member from one community where gay marriage is legal ambles into another - where it is a cause for being executed?
This^
We don't execute homosexuals or anyone unless we have to for good reason.
Most Provinces have said no to this anyway.
Oh really? This is the fun part of being a centrist. When you stand for State's Rights and marriage Equality. Abstaining is just a weak way to get out of making a choice....
The Kaiser has said no as well as the Grand Premier. The main reason is because the country is mostly Christian and don't care too much for LGBT marriage.
I'd much rather government to.get out of marriage completely.. but I suppose A. Yes will have to sustain for now.
Suffice* not sustain.. sometimes smart phones are not smart.
This is a misunderstanding of the principles of decentralized government.
The first is a comical idea derived from the misconception that different communities would inevitably enforce incompatible laws when, really, a degree of compatibility is necessary for the mutual benefit of multiple communities.
And the second is a critical misunderstanding of government itself. Choosing to leave complex political matters to individual provinces is not denying a choice to the people; it's denying a choice to big government, which is probably the most crucial aspect of anything pertaining to civil rights. Are people truly free if they're forced to be? Think of the American education system, for example. Herd mentality led every single state to enforce similar compulsory education standards; that means that everyone, in one way or another, is educated - but opting out isn't an option until the schooling is nearly over. There are a few people who do not fit within the "one size fits all" system - probably less than 10% of any given population - but they are the 10% that cost education departments the most money and cause the most trouble. If every state reevaluated the need for compulsory education, a few would inevitably decide against it while many would continue to lean toward it. It simply depends on the needs of the people in smaller groups, not the collective consensus of a large one. That, after all, would be a suppression of minority rights simply to favor majority rule.
But it's late and I'm rambling, so I'm probably not making much sense. :P
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.