Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Jadentopian Order wrote:I swear we've had this discussion before but this is slander.

As for Pink Floyd, my most controversial music opinion is that they were better with Syd Barrett, and generally just better before DSOTM.

I don’t think I’m too familiar with Pink Floyd with Syd Barrett involved. Maybe you could recommend some to me.

All of this talk about 70s music is reminding me of the time we all jumped on Pev for that whole “70s bad, 80s good” thing.

I listen to disco. This usually leaves me out of the 70s vs 80s controversy

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Rateria wrote:I don’t think I’m too familiar with Pink Floyd with Syd Barrett involved. Maybe you could recommend some to me.

All of this talk about 70s music is reminding me of the time we all jumped on Pev for that whole “70s bad, 80s good” thing.

Check out their first album, Piper At The Gates of Dawn.

60s > 70s and 80s btw

Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I'm pretty sure that if a kid talked like that around here, he'd get his ass kicked.

It was exaggerated to be sure, they'd probably get their ass kicked here too.

Narland

Miri Islands wrote:I listen to disco. This usually leaves me out of the 70s vs 80s controversy

Lol, I was the kid who drove his pickup (55 Dodge Stepside with 318 V8) to school in Jr. High with the bumper sticker (left side of rear bumper)

"I'd Rather Chew Barbed-Wire Than Listen To Disco." I had a home-made sticker under it that read, "Except Abba" Abba is as close to disco as I get.

Other bumper stickers:

on the Golden Growler (yes, for some reason at school we named our cars, and assumed every other school did too):

middle sticker: "Get Right or Get Left,",

upper right sticker: "(Big Letters: Support Your Police -- (underneath in small print: "Help Keep Them Local and Independent." marked me as a teenage John Bircher.

lower right sticker was: You Wont Get My Gun Till You Pry It From My Cold Dead Fingers but Grandma made me remove it.

then it was: Don't Californicate Idaho but the school wouldn't let me park the pickup on school grounds.

my uncle gave an AuH2O for President with a pic of Goldwater from the 60s but I didn't have the heart to put it on and kept it in a scrapbook.

then it was: Warning: This truck stops for no apparent reason. but it fell off.

finally: No Jesus No Peace, Know Jesus Know Peace.

By the time I was in High School my car (63 Studebaker Gran Tourismo) "The Mighty Chickedhawk" and the (78 Futura) "Shiloh" only had in the middle of the bumper Get Right or Get Left

By graduation I was over bumper stickers.

Bumper Stickers -- the memes of the Motor Age before the advent of the Internet.

Narland wrote:Bumper Stickers -- the memes of the Motor Age before the advent of the Internet.

I have one that says "Libertarian" but that's about it. I'm not against getting one or two more, but I'm not sticker-bombing it, ruins the paint.

Skaveria wrote:I have one that says "Libertarian" but that's about it. I'm not against getting one or two more, but I'm not sticker-bombing it, ruins the paint.

Yeah. They are paint destroyers. I had two sets of uncles that had vehicles plastered with 20 or so bumper stickers, so I thought 5 was being conservative. lol. I love bumper stickers, but after high school, I lost desire to broadcast my already bombastic personality. I lived in Portland, OR for a year that seemed like eternity and couldn't resist putting a "Visualize Whirled Peas" in the style of the Visualize World Peace on the old Buick. :)

Narland wrote:Yeah. They are paint destroyers. I had two sets of uncles that had vehicles plastered with 20 or so bumper stickers, so I thought 5 was being conservative. lol. I love bumper stickers, but after high school, I lost desire to broadcast my already bombastic personality. I lived in Portland, OR for a year that seemed like eternity and couldn't resist putting a "Visualize Whirled Peas" in the style of the Visualize World Peace on the old Buick. :)

Fortunately I live in a sane part if the country. I could see a Trump sticker getting me some looks or perhaps even light vandalism if I went into the city with it, but if I stay out in the county, lots of folks love Trump.

Jadentopian Order wrote:Check out their first album, Piper At The Gates of Dawn.

60s > 70s and 80s btw

Thank you for the recommendation.

If releasing carbon into the atmosphere causes the glaciers to melt, and the glaciers melting causes the sea levels to rise, and the sea levels rising causes damage to coastal properties, couldn't the release of carbon be considered an act of aggression under the NAP?

Rateria

New poll in Zentari, come and vote!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=147668

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:If releasing carbon into the atmosphere causes the glaciers to melt, and the glaciers melting causes the sea levels to rise, and the sea levels rising causes damage to coastal properties, couldn't the release of carbon be considered an act of aggression under the NAP?

Climate destruction is violence

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:If releasing carbon into the atmosphere causes the glaciers to melt, and the glaciers melting causes the sea levels to rise, and the sea levels rising causes damage to coastal properties, couldn't the release of carbon be considered an act of aggression under the NAP?
Anyone remember who it was that said in in the 80s (loose quote) -- if the people could be hoodwinked into into believing that carbon dioxide pollutant that X -- they could be convinced to believe anything, or something to that effect and the Soviets would cripple American industry?

The Soviet Union is gone but the Neomarxist malice continues to infested our academicians. Same Marxist lies -- a segment of mankind is the problem (the bourgeoisie, the genetically "inferior", the nobility, industrialist, (insert latest Hegelian dialectically calculated group for castigation here).

Tyranny comes in many guises but the solution is always surrenduring your rights to the despotic whims of some egotistical narcissist(s) and their delusional whims (scientifically corroborated by their "experts" of course).

Socialism/Marxism/Lenninism/Nazism/Fascism/Fabianism/Globalism can fix it -- give us your lives, your rights, and your children to live our regimented plan and maybe we won't go Pol Pot on you.

Being afraid of the Bourgeoisie didn't work. Fear the Jews failed. Fearing free market/free enterprise Capitalism is comical. Fear overpopulation was a farce. Fearing an impending ice age was demonstrably laughable. Fearing globular warming failed. Fearing the weather (and by extension the climate of the Earth) the most incredulous of all seems to be gaining traction (for now).

Skaveria wrote:If releasing carbon into the atmosphere causes the glaciers to melt, and the glaciers melting causes the sea levels to rise, and the sea levels rising causes damage to coastal properties, couldn't the release of carbon be considered an act of aggression under the NAP?

Not really. It's a negative externality, and as far as I'm aware the NAP doesn't really cover externalities.

Pevvania wrote:Not really. It's a negative externality, and as far as I'm aware the NAP doesn't really cover externalities.

Well somebody brought it up to me in a debate and after thinking about it, I couldn't find a way for it not to.

If I change the environment in such a way as it becomes hostile to property, have I not then violated property rights in some way?

If I were to dig a hole in my yard, and blow up some dynamite deep within the earth, amd it causes my neighbor's foundation to shift and their house collapses, am I not responsible for that, even though I did everything on my own property?

If I dump waste in my part of a river, and it flows down to your part, am I not liable for the contamination?

In that same way, if granted the premise that the release of carbon raises sea levels, then those sea levels flood someone's house, am I not then responsible for that?

You could say that I could suspend my responsibility to the group. Obviously it's not my individual contribution that tipped the scales, but say in the case of Caesar. He was stabbed by the entire senate. Now one individual stab was probably survivable, but yet each senator was responsible for murder.

I really want the answer to be no, that's why I'm asking, but I don't know how it can be.

I just passed 1billion citizens

Narland, Rateria, Skaveria, Stiltusgibberum

Skaveria wrote:If I change the environment in such a way as it becomes hostile to property, have I not then violated property rights in some way?
Not necessarily.

Skaveria wrote:If I were to dig a hole in my yard, and blow up some dynamite deep within the earth, amd it causes my neighbor's foundation to shift and their house collapses, am I not responsible for that, even though I did everything on my own property?
Were you working on needful improvements (legal definition) or were you engaging in reckless behaviour (everything else)? If the former no, if the latter yes.

Skaveria wrote:If I dump waste in my part of a river, and it flows down to your part, am I not liable for the contamination?
Most certainly, as a part of the responsibility of owning property is containing avoidable contaminants -- your breath and farts are not.

Skaveria wrote:In that same way, if granted the premise that the release of carbon raises sea levels, then those sea levels flood someone's house, am I not then responsible for that?
The premise is part of the lie and cannot be granted. You cannot control the Sun (the greatest determinant of earths climate regardless of how much carbon is in the atmosphere), nor the inestimable interactions of all the factors involved the next biggest out of our control is the magnetic field. The third biggest factor is the Ice Age we are leaving from which we have no real idea how it happened/is happening (only educated guesses). Not to mention water vapor is the greatest greenhouse gas, nor the relatively large amount of carbon dioxide that is absorbed by glacier melt water. Scientist know only a fraction of the factors involved that the need computer simulations that may or may not even have enough factors or data to be reliable. They can only guess and estimate.

We just came out of an ice age. Only a few thousand years ago (~10k for old earthers / ~5k for young earthers) there was at least a mile (1500m) of ice over what is now Toronto, Chicago, Stockholm etc. The ice cap was over 2 miles (3000 meters) thick over most of Canada and in the northern hemisphere came down to the 40th parallel in places. Its extent was so so great that the shorelines were 450 ft /125m lower (let that sink in) which has been rising steadily for the last few thousand years. But if the ice caps continue to melt or the sea levels continue to rise (another) 14 ft as they have been doing for the last ~20k years, lets blame it on humans so we can control them.

Skaveria wrote:You could say that I could suspend my responsibility to the group. Obviously it's not my individual contribution that tipped the scales, but say in the case of Caesar. He was stabbed by the entire senate. Now one individual stab was probably survivable, but yet each senator was responsible for murder.

I really want the answer to be no, that's why I'm asking, but I don't know how it can be.

If you want to win the debate you must first frame the debate and define the terms to win the debate. It used to be "he who defines the terms wins the debate" because we shared the same ethos. In this late hour framing the debate is the the debate. if you do not frame the debate in order to define the terms and you will lose. They have already calculated their dialectic (narrative in their Socialist worldview), defined their terms, and determined anyone in their way is to be castigated and branded the problem.

Climate Change Scaremongering is a conflation (carbon as a pollutant) and a fallacy of ambiguity (global changes) while they fallaciously move the goal posts using Hegelian dialectics and Marxist dialectic determinism to deprive you of your life liberty and property -- continuously putting you on the defensive with their "experts" until your personhood (and all that comes with it including life, liberty, and property) belongs to their machinations -- making you look like the aggressor.

NAP applies to human interaction with reasonable. rational (general sense) human beings who respect other human beings (which Climate Alarmists do not). For that you need either the Bhudda's: Do not treat others the way you do not yourself want to be treated, or the Christ's: Treat others the way you yourself want to be treated. Of the latter, it means politely rejecting the mistakes beliefs of others and (if agreeable) engage them in conversation. It means staunchly rejecting the invasive delusions of others and (if open-minded) reproving them with gentleness. It means contending against the naked ambitions of authoritarians, and (if reasonable) teach then to understanding (this is about objective truth, not subjective religio-political scientistims). NAP doesn't apply to fraud.

Not everyone respects NAP. Historically political powers are rarely if ever kindly disposed to it, except in Western Civ, and then only part of Western Civ. Most people who have a plan that includes deprivation or absence of your life, liberty or property without your consent are not going to give a flip about NAP. NAP is something that you must prove is superior to their despotic thinking by using reason (which they must be rational) and debunk their scientism with rightly applied science (which they must be reasonable). Climate change alarmists are neither.

Carbon as a pollutant is a blatant lie -- carbon monoxide is as it is harmful to human life yes, carbon dioxide as it is naturally occurring and necessary for flora, no. Carbon has a natural cycle and a part of the entire planet from upper atmosphere to deep into the surface. There are trillions if not quadrillions of tons in the surface and it is diffusing constantly into the atmosphere, but that is conveniently ignored by them. The unspoken fraud is that you are carbon therefore you are a polluter and must be regulated, controlled, or excised. All carbon based life forms, and all carbon natural processes (the entire freaking planet) is therefore under the preview of the state (and its ruling political class). The earth's mean temperature and carbon dioxide levers have varied greatly (greater than that which they are scaring us with) throughout history.

Climate change (newspeak) Of course the climate changes -- every second of every day all throughout the seasons and throughout the ages. Sane people generally call it weather.

When talking about general trends of similar in environs for classification then we say climate. Neither can be put in a test tube and given a double blind study except in the crudest of speculative computer simulations. We can make a simplified guess of data (from which we have accurate enough measure only since satellites). But like the pollution and overpopulation scare it was just Hegelian/Marxist dialectical determinism using aforementioned fallacies with the fallacy of changing goalposts to deprive people of their right to life, liberty and property. But you are a Climate Change denier if you do not agree to their conclusion -- "submit to us or we are all going to die." In their minds it is you who is the aggressor against their non-existent right to control you through the weather/climate.

They are the aggressor. Totalitarian states with planned economies are and have been the worst polluters, slowest to change, and most inefficient in the handling any crisis -- even when they plan for the crisis. If there is a catastrophe coming, Free enterprise capitalism, individual rights, and limited government (of which NAP is a part) is most capable of handling it.

Wyattish

Narland wrote:Not necessarily.

Were you working on needful improvements (legal definition) or were you engaging in reckless behaviour (everything else)? If the former no, if the latter yes.

Most certainly, as a part of the responsibility of owning property is containing avoidable contaminants -- your breath and farts are not.

The premise is part of the lie and cannot be granted. You cannot control the Sun (the greatest determinant of earths climate regardless of how much carbon is in the atmosphere), nor the inestimable interactions of all the factors involved the next biggest out of our control is the magnetic field. The third biggest factor is the Ice Age we are leaving from which we have no real idea how it happened/is happening (only educated guesses). Not to mention water vapor is the greatest greenhouse gas, nor the relatively large amount of carbon dioxide that is absorbed by glacier melt water. Scientist know only a fraction of the factors involved that the need computer simulations that may or may not even have enough factors or data to be reliable. They can only guess and estimate.

We just came out of an ice age. Only a few thousand years ago (~10k for old earthers / ~5k for young earthers) there was at least a mile (1500m) of ice over what is now Toronto, Chicago, Stockholm etc. The ice cap was over 2 miles (3000 meters) thick over most of Canada and in the northern hemisphere came down to the 40th parallel in places. Its extent was so so great that the shorelines were 450 ft /125m lower (let that sink in) which has been rising steadily for the last few thousand years. But if the ice caps continue to melt or the sea levels continue to rise (another) 14 ft as they have been doing for the last ~20k years, lets blame it on humans so we can control them.

If you want to win the debate you must first frame the debate and define the terms to win the debate. It used to be "he who defines the terms wins the debate" because we shared the same ethos. In this late hour framing the debate is the the debate. if you do not frame the debate in order to define the terms and you will lose. They have already calculated their dialectic (narrative in their Socialist worldview), defined their terms, and determined anyone in their way is to be castigated and branded the problem.

Climate Change Scaremongering is a conflation (carbon as a pollutant) and a fallacy of ambiguity (global changes) while they fallaciously move the goal posts using Hegelian dialectics and Marxist dialectic determinism to deprive you of your life liberty and property -- continuously putting you on the defensive with their "experts" until your personhood (and all that comes with it including life, liberty, and property) belongs to their machinations -- making you look like the aggressor.

NAP applies to human interaction with reasonable. rational (general sense) human beings who respect other human beings (which Climate Alarmists do not). For that you need either the Bhudda's: Do not treat others the way you do not yourself want to be treated, or the Christ's: Treat others the way you yourself want to be treated. Of the latter, it means politely rejecting the mistakes beliefs of others and (if agreeable) engage them in conversation. It means staunchly rejecting the invasive delusions of others and (if open-minded) reproving them with gentleness. It means contending against the naked ambitions of authoritarians, and (if reasonable) teach then to understanding (this is about objective truth, not subjective religio-political scientistims). NAP doesn't apply to fraud.

Not everyone respects NAP. Historically political powers are rarely if ever kindly disposed to it, except in Western Civ, and then only part of Western Civ. Most people who have a plan that includes deprivation or absence of your life, liberty or property without your consent are not going to give a flip about NAP. NAP is something that you must prove is superior to their despotic thinking by using reason (which they must be rational) and debunk their scientism with rightly applied science (which they must be reasonable). Climate change alarmists are neither.

Carbon as a pollutant is a blatant lie -- carbon monoxide is as it is harmful to human life yes, carbon dioxide as it is naturally occurring and necessary for flora, no. Carbon has a natural cycle and a part of the entire planet from upper atmosphere to deep into the surface. There are trillions if not quadrillions of tons in the surface and it is diffusing constantly into the atmosphere, but that is conveniently ignored by them. The unspoken fraud is that you are carbon therefore you are a polluter and must be regulated, controlled, or excised. All carbon based life forms, and all carbon natural processes (the entire freaking planet) is therefore under the preview of the state (and its ruling political class). The earth's mean temperature and carbon dioxide levers have varied greatly (greater than that which they are scaring us with) throughout history.

Climate change (newspeak) Of course the climate changes -- every second of every day all throughout the seasons and throughout the ages. Sane people generally call it weather.

When talking about general trends of similar in environs for classification then we say climate. Neither can be put in a test tube and given a double blind study except in the crudest of speculative computer simulations. We can make a simplified guess of data (from which we have accurate enough measure only since satellites). But like the pollution and overpopulation scare it was just Hegelian/Marxist dialectical determinism using aforementioned fallacies with the fallacy of changing goalposts to deprive people of their right to life, liberty and property. But you are a Climate Change denier if you do not agree to their conclusion -- "submit to us or we are all going to die." In their minds it is you who is the aggressor against their non-existent right to control you through the weather/climate.

They are the aggressor. Totalitarian states with planned economies are and have been the worst polluters, slowest to change, and most inefficient in the handling any crisis -- even when they plan for the crisis. If there is a catastrophe coming, Free enterprise capitalism, individual rights, and limited government (of which NAP is a part) is most capable of handling it.

I’m willing to grant that many people want to implement statist solutions to our current climate situation. What I’m not willing to grant is that it isn’t happening. No one reasonable is saying that carbon is inherently bad. You’re right that there is a carbon cycle and that we are carbon-based life forms. However, we both know that carbon is a greenhouse gas and that greenhouse gases trap more of the sun’s heat. Industries emit more carbon and methane than individuals, so blaming our current state of affairs entirely on everyday people is a poor way of doing things. This is part of why I’m not a fan of petroleum producers. Yes, they provide something that the world currently needs, but they definitely don’t want competition from more sustainable sources of energy. Unlike some people concerned about climate change, I’m actually open to nuclear power.

The planet has been through cycles of warming and cooling in the past, but that doesn’t mean that humans somehow have nothing to do with this one. If nothing is wrong, then how come coral reefs are in decline for example?

I know you have no ill will towards me or our environment (you live in it, after all), but you do have me wondering, what are your solutions to our situation? I know you’re a free market proponent, so I’m curious how such a system could solve this, if it can.

Jadentopian Order

Rateria wrote:I’m willing to grant that many people want to implement statist solutions to our current climate situation. What I’m not willing to grant is that it isn’t happening. No one reasonable is saying that carbon is inherently bad. You’re right that there is a carbon cycle and that we are carbon-based life forms. However, we both know that carbon is a greenhouse gas and that greenhouse gases trap more of the sun’s heat. Industries emit more carbon and methane than individuals, so blaming our current state of affairs entirely on everyday people is a poor way of doing things. This is part of why I’m not a fan of petroleum producers. Yes, they provide something that the world currently needs, but they definitely don’t want competition from more sustainable sources of energy. Unlike some people concerned about climate change, I’m actually open to nuclear power.

The planet has been through cycles of warming and cooling in the past, but that doesn’t mean that humans somehow have nothing to do with this one. If nothing is wrong, then how come coral reefs are in decline for example?

I know you have no ill will towards me or our environment (you live in it, after all), but you do have me wondering, what are your solutions to our situation? I know you’re a free market proponent, so I’m curious how such a system could solve this, if it can.

I actually heard an interesting idea from Jordan Peterson on the topic. It's not particularly a direct solution to the problem, but an indirect one.

He made the claim, (and I haven't verified this) that people, when they've acquired a certain amount of wealth,(he gave an exact figure, but I cannot remember) will start to care about the environment. So, if that's the case, then it'd behooth us to lift as many people out of poverty as possible so we can add as many brains to finding a solution as we possibly can and maybe one of them can figure it out. He made reference to one activist, who rather than waving placards, developed a technology that's very efficient at cleaning up the oceans.

So then the question becomes: What economic system historically, is responsible for lifting the most people out of poverty? We all know the answer to that one. The expansion of Capitalism around the globe will find a solution to the problem.

Miri Islands

Climate change is a myth but i like the solutions you've come up with

Miri Islands wrote:Climate change is a myth but i like the solutions you've come up with

Humans ARE making the planet warmer to a degree, but the degree to which they are is vastly overblown by the media.

I believe we were all supposed to be dead by 2000, then it didn't happen and they said 2010, then that didn't happen so they're saying our extinction is imminent. Sorry if I don't believe you media.

Global warming IS an issue that we'll have to face at some point in the future, but personally I don't think that'll be for a long time. I'm also a fan of carbon capture. I remember an interview where Dan Crenshaw went into detail about a factory that captures all of it's carbon and uses it to power the factory.

Pevvania

Skaveria wrote:Humans ARE making the planet warmer to a degree, but the degree to which they are is vastly overblown by the media.

I believe we were all supposed to be dead by 2000, then it didn't happen and they said 2010, then that didn't happen so they're saying our extinction is imminent. Sorry if I don't believe you media.

Global warming IS an issue that we'll have to face at some point in the future, but personally I don't think that'll be for a long time. I'm also a fan of carbon capture. I remember an interview where Dan Crenshaw went into detail about a factory that captures all of it's carbon and uses it to power the factory.

The climate has been warming and cooling long before we existed as a species. And didn't the carbon capture factory get debunked by thunderfoot

Miri Islands wrote:The climate has been warming and cooling long before we existed as a species. And didn't the carbon capture factory get debunked by thunderfoot

Yes, the climate does fluctuate naturally, but carbon production accelerates that by making the climate slightly warmer as time goes on. I haven't seen that thunderfoot video.

Skaveria wrote:Yes, the climate does fluctuate naturally, but carbon production accelerates that by making the climate slightly warmer as time goes on. I haven't seen that thunderfoot video.

Carbon dioxide is a weak green house gas water is the strongest greenhouse gas but nobody ever mentions it and I posted the video on general in the discord

Skaveria wrote:Humans ARE making the planet warmer to a degree, but the degree to which they are is vastly overblown by the media.

I believe we were all supposed to be dead by 2000, then it didn't happen and they said 2010, then that didn't happen so they're saying our extinction is imminent. Sorry if I don't believe you media.

Global warming IS an issue that we'll have to face at some point in the future, but personally I don't think that'll be for a long time. I'm also a fan of carbon capture. I remember an interview where Dan Crenshaw went into detail about a factory that captures all of it's carbon and uses it to power the factory.

I absolutely love the idea of carbon capture. The issue is getting it off the ground, so to speak. Real Engineering did a video on it a while ago. As for the media overblowing the issue and it being less serious than popularly believed, I’d have to look for myself.

Miri Islands wrote:Carbon dioxide is a weak green house gas water is the strongest greenhouse gas but nobody ever mentions it and I posted the video on general in the discord

I’d have to look at that. Water vapor is definitely a greenhouse gas, and this is scientifically accepted. I can’t say I know if it’s the strongest though.

Skaveria wrote:Humans ARE making the planet warmer to a degree, but the degree to which they are is vastly overblown by the media.

I believe we were all supposed to be dead by 2000, then it didn't happen and they said 2010, then that didn't happen so they're saying our extinction is imminent. Sorry if I don't believe you media.

Global warming IS an issue that we'll have to face at some point in the future, but personally I don't think that'll be for a long time. I'm also a fan of carbon capture. I remember an interview where Dan Crenshaw went into detail about a factory that captures all of it's carbon and uses it to power the factory.

I'm with you on all of that. The climate change alarmists' record of prediction does not inspire confidence, and the "12 years" or "9 years" prediction is based on a grand total of one study, by the UN of course. And the alarmism is very clearly a convenient excuse to expand government and enact socialistic and statist policies all around the world.

However, I do agree that this doesn't mean we should ignore the issue, because I do believe a lot of the climate change is human-caused. There's just way too much evidence out there, compiled by thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries, to think otherwise. The solutions can and should be market-based, because markets are inherent to being human and I think they'll always be with us. Better technology, an even playing field in the energy market (meaning no oil subsidies or tax penalties for renewables), NUCLEAR ENERGY, and possibly a carbon tax if we can cut taxes elsewhere in proportionate measure.

Miencraft, Rateria

I'm in a poli sci class this semester titled Social Justice (yeah) and the assistant lecturer who teaches once a week just cannot wrap his head around the free market. He's a very nice guy and a good teacher, and I don't have anything bad to say about him, but he is some kind of socialist or Marxist. Today in class he asked us if we knew how the eight-hour work day came around. I said, correctly, that it was due to productivity increases after the Industrial Revolution. The teacher cracked a smile and asked "so you think the bosses unanimously decided to give the workers a fair working day?" and proceeded to reason why he believed it was due to migrant workers' struggles as to why we have an 8-hour work day.

Why is it so hard to understand the market? Why do people accept the self-regulating mechanisms of natural ecosystems and their ability to repair themselves and grow without external stimuli, yet scoff or turn up their noses at the thought of markets doing the same thing? Why is it naive to think we don't need to apply force in every economic situation?

Pevvania wrote:I'm in a poli sci class this semester titled Social Justice (yeah) and the assistant lecturer who teaches once a week just cannot wrap his head around the free market. He's a very nice guy and a good teacher, and I don't have anything bad to say about him, but he is some kind of socialist or Marxist. Today in class he asked us if we knew how the eight-hour work day came around. I said, correctly, that it was due to productivity increases after the Industrial Revolution. The teacher cracked a smile and asked "so you think the bosses unanimously decided to give the workers a fair working day?" and proceeded to reason why he believed it was due to migrant workers' struggles as to why we have an 8-hour work day.

Why is it so hard to understand the market? Why do people accept the self-regulating mechanisms of natural ecosystems and their ability to repair themselves and grow without external stimuli, yet scoff or turn up their noses at the thought of markets doing the same thing? Why is it naive to think we don't need to apply force in every economic situation?

they don’t want to accept a self-regulating environment because it means they won’t be able to push their agendas on society using the government

Pevvania

Pevvania wrote:I'm with you on all of that. The climate change alarmists' record of prediction does not inspire confidence, and the "12 years" or "9 years" prediction is based on a grand total of one study, by the UN of course. And the alarmism is very clearly a convenient excuse to expand government and enact socialistic and statist policies all around the world.

However, I do agree that this doesn't mean we should ignore the issue, because I do believe a lot of the climate change is human-caused. There's just way too much evidence out there, compiled by thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries, to think otherwise. The solutions can and should be market-based, because markets are inherent to being human and I think they'll always be with us. Better technology, an even playing field in the energy market (meaning no oil subsidies or tax penalties for renewables), NUCLEAR ENERGY, and possibly a carbon tax if we can cut taxes elsewhere in proportionate measure.

Any means of attacking 'climate change' is a means to bring the government into the market on a large scale to control and regulate nearly every aspect of the economy. What do we do that doesnt produce emissions? If you invite the government to do anything it will be impossible to get rid of them and they will do a sh*t job doing it. The climate hasn't been changing much recently. There was a cooling trend in the mid 1800s then a warming trend peaking in the laye 1930s then a cooling trend till the late 70s causing the ice age scare. From there it was a warming trend which appears to have peaked in the early 2010s. The recent years weren't too hot. This summer was quite mild.

Pevvania wrote:I'm in a poli sci class this semester titled Social Justice (yeah) and the assistant lecturer who teaches once a week just cannot wrap his head around the free market. He's a very nice guy and a good teacher, and I don't have anything bad to say about him, but he is some kind of socialist or Marxist. Today in class he asked us if we knew how the eight-hour work day came around. I said, correctly, that it was due to productivity increases after the Industrial Revolution. The teacher cracked a smile and asked "so you think the bosses unanimously decided to give the workers a fair working day?" and proceeded to reason why he believed it was due to migrant workers' struggles as to why we have an 8-hour work day.

Why is it so hard to understand the market? Why do people accept the self-regulating mechanisms of natural ecosystems and their ability to repair themselves and grow without external stimuli, yet scoff or turn up their noses at the thought of markets doing the same thing? Why is it naive to think we don't need to apply force in every economic situation?

People who demand central authority can't comprehend people working independently in a self regualting system which is quite funny when they advocate for a system where workers supposedly work independently of an authority like a boss.

Pevvania

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

My shadow governance has ended yet again

I'm really thankful for all the Trump impeachment stuff going on. It's bringing on all this attention to Biden and Trump and not to nut job hypocrit socialist Bernie.

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon

Little boy blue and the man in the moon

"When you coming home, dad?" "I don't know when"

But we'll get together then

You know we'll have a good time then

Pevvania, Muh Roads, Highway Eighty-Eight

Please consider sending a puppet to A Region Where We Pretend To Be Commies for great laughs and mockery comrades!

Ah, back to benevolent dictatorship at last

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

*comes out of the shadows*

That would be me

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I thought you were secret?
Nah, im not about that

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

New poll in Zentari, come and vote!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=147980

Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:So you're about are ye? To or from?

Who dat boi? Who him is?

Miencraft

Yar, the internet be a cruel mistress

Justin Amash, who used to be one of my heroes in politics, has become such an embarrassment. Trump could end all American involvement overseas and abolish the Fed, and Justin Amash would still, in truly deranged fashion, find a reason to condemn the ebil bad orange man.

https://mobile.twitter.com/justinamash/status/1181224116348706821

Pevvania, Narland

The New United States wrote:Justin Amash, who used to be one of my heroes in politics, has become such an embarrassment. Trump could end all American involvement overseas and abolish the Fed, and Justin Amash would still, in truly deranged fashion, find a reason to condemn the ebil bad orange man.

https://mobile.twitter.com/justinamash/status/1181224116348706821

“US Forces should not even be in Syria without congressional approval”

True.

“ Regardless, Turkey would not take this action without the express consent of the White House. It’s disingenuous for President Trump to suggest it’s all about “ISIS fighters” when the target is Kurdish forces.”

Weren’t we allies with the Kurdish? I don’t think it’s hard at all to see that the idea behind this is to score with Turkey. Trump clearly sees Turkey as a more valuable ally and wanted their support. I don’t think this can be spun any other way than betraying an ally, regardless of whether or not you believe that we should’ve been in Syria in the first place.

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

We should bring all our troops home and just build a giant wall around the whole country for all I care at this point. If people wanna live like primitive savages, that's fine by me, we'll be over here with Iphones.

If the people in a region are being oppressed, it's on them to revolt, not on us to save them time and time again.

The New United States

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:The Kurds fought. They fought for everyone. They disproportionately fought in defense of your rights.

A libertarian who doesn't support the defense of everyone's free exercise of their rights is a hypocrite

If this is the norm of libertarianism, libertarianism ought to be remain in the minority.

My anti-interventionism outweighs any respect I may have for the Kurds.

I'm for Libertarianism in AMERICA. I'm not, however, for riding into every backwards s**thole on this planet to the tune of Fortunate Son and promptly staying there for damn near twenty years trying to liberate a people of whom half don't even wanna be liberated. That's not liberty; that's spreading "Libertarianism" by the sword.

If you wanna arm freedom fighters, go right ahead, but I'm not willing to sacrifice any more of our sons and daughters to that godforsaken desert.

Pevvania, The New United States

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:You're not free if your not free everywhere.

1) Let's focus on making Americans free before we start pushing for international, perpetual revolution.

2) The more the federal government is involved overseas, the greater its capacity to squelch American liberties at home. It's an excuse to print more money, take more from Americans' checkbooks, and empower the American national security state that would make Stalin envious. Even Bill Buckley, the cold warrior [I]par excellence[/I] admitted that America could not fight for "freedom" abroad "except though the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores."

Pevvania, Narland, Skaveria

The ideological battle shouldnt be fought with soldiers, but rather, thinkers.

as you all may know I have a particular disdain for communism, but that being said, we shouldn't have gone into Vietnam or Korea. If we're attacked however, we are fully within our rights to crush the enemy, but only if there's undeniable evidence of an imminent attack.

We don't get to world-build. It's not our place. Nations are sovereign.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:If nations are sovereign, then the North Koreans and the North Vietnamese violated the sovereignty of their southern neighbors. We violated no nations sovereignty during the Korean or Vietnam Wars. The idea that you can change the mond of those who's conviction is not based on reason os laughable, and they are who we are fighting, or rather, should be fighting in Syria, China, and the enslaved world. If our allies are attacked (and all free people are our allies) there is justification for war.

Now, not only will 10,000 Kurds have died on defense of the world's Natural Rights, but now many thousands more will be slaughtered because world felt that Natural Rights are nothing but hollow words we use when we want our iPhones or are upset that we have to pay a few dollars more in taxes.

If a popular election were held to supply certain groups with military supplies, intel, and technology, and it passed, then there'd be no problem, but even that technically violates the rights of everyone who voted against it.

If private citizens want to travel to those places and reinforce them, then that's their decision, as well as sending them money, but U.S. soldier have no business being anywhere that we arent currently fighting to defend ourselves from.

The New United States wrote:Justin Amash, who used to be one of my heroes in politics, has become such an embarrassment. Trump could end all American involvement overseas and abolish the Fed, and Justin Amash would still, in truly deranged fashion, find a reason to condemn the ebil bad orange man.

https://mobile.twitter.com/justinamash/status/1181224116348706821

I agree. Amash is a great warning sign of the consequences of ideological absolutism.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:The Kurds fought. They fought for everyone. They disproportionately fought in defense of your rights.

A libertarian who doesn't support the defense of everyone's free exercise of their rights is a hypocrite

If this is the norm of libertarianism, libertarianism ought to be remain in the minority.

Can we not play the libertarian purity spiral game, please?

Miri Islands

I think there's a middle ground between total non-interventionism and idealistic neo-conservatism, both of which I think are quite naive. I think the US should maintain its status as the world superpower any way we can, but at the same time should intervene as little as possible and only in cases that on net advance our interests. There was a clear national security and ideological case to intervene throughout the Cold War because it meant stopping the Soviet domination of the world. I oppose Trump's move if it threatens the Kurds, but we have very few national security interest in maintaining our Middle East presence. It has cost us countless amounts of blood and treasure and if anything has possibly bred more terrorists. I'm more than happy for the Russians to come in and waste their money on these quagmires instead of us.

Narland

Pevvania wrote:I think there's a middle ground between total non-interventionism and idealistic neo-conservatism, both of which I think are quite naive. I think the US should maintain its status as the world superpower any way we can, but at the same time should intervene as little as possible and only in cases that on net advance our interests. There was a clear national security and ideological case to intervene throughout the Cold War because it meant stopping the Soviet domination of the world. I oppose Trump's move if it threatens the Kurds, but we have very few national security interest in maintaining our Middle East presence. It has cost us countless amounts of blood and treasure and if anything has possibly bred more terrorists. I'm more than happy for the Russians to come in and waste their money on these quagmires instead of us.

I look at it as a Constitutional challenge to unravel the entangling alliances from Rhodesian "Make-the-World-Safe-for-Demogoguery" that shackles both parties to foreign policy that makes us the attack dogs and knee-cappers for Globalism -- the only decision to make is which dictator is more conducive to my party.

What I want to see from any President is how we can best get back to the Washington/Madison doctrine of trade and commerce with all friendly nations and entangling alliances with non, period. The Foreign Policy Doctrine of the post Eisenhower Foreign Policy Administrative State has failed. We had the chance to turn Iraq into an Constitutional Federal Republic with a Bill of Rights (at the time they wanted what we had), and the Bush/Clinton crowd blew that 14 ways to Sunday. If we had sent teachers, entrepreneurs real journalists, and missionaries into Afghanistan along with our troops there would be a generation now of voting age to further the ideals of life and liberty instead of poppies and poverty.

Pevvania

70 years of Communist Chinese rule -- that's about 10 million murders per decade to prop up their despotism. It doesn't seem like much of a fair trade.

Its Vladimir Putin's 66th b-day today (insert snarky phrase here).

Pevvania

Skaveria wrote:My anti-interventionism outweighs any respect I may have for the Kurds.

....

By withdrawing our forces we actively aided a turkish invasion. Merely keeping the status quo would have prevented a war. Turkey wouldn't have invaded if american troops were still there. The kurds have been a good ally and have greatly aided our fight against isis. If this is acceptable behavior towards an ally, I suggest no people ally themselves with us.

I understand the sentiment for anti-interventionism. But more care is needed in getting out or we are just going to end up in the same place. Then the blood that has already been spilt will have been in vain.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:By withdrawing our forces we actively aided a turkish invasion. Merely keeping the status quo would have prevented a war. Turkey wouldn't have invaded if american troops were still there. The kurds have been a good ally and have greatly aided our fight against isis. If this is acceptable behavior towards an ally, I suggest no people ally themselves with us.

I understand the sentiment for anti-interventionism. But more care is needed in getting out or we are just going to end up in the same place. Then the blood that has already been spilt will have been in vain.

I differ from many libertarians in that I believe in a strong military not just for national defense. I want to fight radical religion, I want to fight Communism as these ideologies bring untold suffering. The kurds, though ideologically repulsive, are worthy of respect and national sovereignty

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:What's ideologically repulsive about them? They are more progressive than many European states (Poland with its blasphemy and anti-gay laws comes to mind)

It's mostly the lefty socialist policies

The New United States

I am a fan of Trump ending the Establishment/Globalist Everlasting Wars. I do not like leaving the Kurds in a lurch, but Trump has warned Turkey to leave the Kurds alone.

“As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)” -- Donald J. Trump

What bothers me is that those whom I consider freedom-loving Kurds are too busy laying low, avoiding the Maoist Kurds screening for "liberty and equality" while lying their faces off, murdering and terrorizing anyone disagreeing with them, while the Marxist-Islamist Kurds work with Turkey for an "autonomous self-government" letting no one else speak on Kurdish behalf. The Rojave Regional government may have a chance, but I doubt it -- the Bushes (41 and 43) and Clintons (both prez Bill and secofstate Hillary)'s near-identical foreign policies made sure of that.

Pevvania, The New United States, Miri Islands

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

lol, Trump takes some getting used to. If I hadn't actually met arrogant ambitious NYers, and NJers behaved like a braggadocio from Queens, I would think Trump was a loon, but because he is an extreme example of a distinct subclass, I don't worry to much about it. I do love to watch people's heads explode when he goads (or trolls) people with his uncharacteristic mannerisms and doesn't give a care about what people think of his idiosyncratic oratory -- especially those who do not want to understand him (like the Progressivist Ruling Class and the Nevertrumper's of the Establishment of both parties inhabiting the Swampway).

Trump has written plenty of policy statements in his books and articles, some of which made it into Reform Party docs of the Perot era. He is obviously a disciple of Dale Carnegie (et al.), and his pastor Norman Vincent Peale seems to have rubbed off in part. The only two changes he has made since his Reform Party days has been going to pro-life, and wanting real immigration reform. He has always been about dismantling the deep state (especially the (Prescott) Bush and Albright political machines) and that is where he has my support in general -- returning to Free-Enterprise (in as far as he wants to go) and Liberty specifically (which is about 60% of what Trump is about). The other 40% of which I disagree is much better than what Clinton would have done to us.

I suppose justice won't be satisfied until every public servant that has ever willfully trampled on the rights, privileges, and immunities of each and every Citizen, especially malfeasance by misprision of felony and deprivation of rights under color of authority is publicly rebuked, fired or serving appropriate sentences for their crimes, starting at, idk, the Federal Triangle in DC and spiral outward into all Federal reach from pole to pole.

Pevvania, The New United States, Skaveria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:"Great and unmatched wisdom"

Just shut up.

It's just a trumpism

Pevvania, Narland, The New United States

Trump is a great weapon to be wielded against the elites. Would I prefer someone more ideologically pure and verbally articulate? Yes, but nobody else would have taken on the media and the establishment the way he has. Sometimes when situations get this bad, you need a hammer. Trump is that hammer.

Pevvania, Narland, The New United States, Miri Islands

Hey guys, watch me get banned from the internet!

The Republic of China is the only legitimate Chinese government.

Pevvania, Narland, Muh Roads, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Miri Islands

Miencraft wrote:Hey guys, watch me get banned from the internet!

The Republic of China is the only legitimate Chinese government.

RIP

Miencraft, Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Today's "libertarians" would say we should not have sent our sons to die down in the South to fight for those who aren't willing to revolt on their own. It was the black man's fight, not mine.

yes

I generally support self-governance. If a group of the people no longer wish to be in that society, then they should form their own, whether it be Ireland, Palestine, Catalonia, and yes, the Confederacy.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:What's ideologically repulsive about them? They are more progressive than many European states (Poland with its blasphemy and anti-gay laws comes to mind)

I'm sympathetic to their struggle for independence, but the Kurdish independence movement in Turkey and the YPG in Syria are explicitly communistic, so of course they are "ideologically repulsive." Any independent Kurdish state would likely become a failed state quickly if their ideology were implemented, regardless of how progressive they are and how many wamen are in their army.

Narland, Miri Islands

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:The Confederacy was founded upon slavery. The continuance of slavery is not a justification for secession, and is certainly not justified ever.

Slavery is not to be morally accepted, but the South was on legitimate, constitutional grounds in seceding from the Union. The 10th amendment guaranteed the states such a right (i.e. the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution") and, I think rightfully, the South considered the Constitution, as a contract between states, to have been voided by northern states unconstitutionally nullifying the fugitive slave clause.

They were certainly more justified in seceding than Lincoln was in usurping the Constitution and invading the South for a false "unity."

Miencraft, Narland

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Slavery is not to be accepted at all. Secession to oppress is not legitimate.

Then Kurdish secession, as a radical communist movement (the most deadly and oppressive ideology in history), is also not legitimate? *curiousemoji*

Miri Islands

The New United States wrote:Then Kurdish secession, as a radical communist movement (the most deadly and oppressive ideology in history), is also not legitimate? *curiousemoji*

Or perhaps "secession to oppress" is more legitimate when there's a red flag and a bit of a hip, progressive flair to it? :)

Miri Islands

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The New United States wrote:Then Kurdish secession, as a radical communist movement (the most deadly and oppressive ideology in history), is also not legitimate? *curiousemoji*

The New United States wrote:Or perhaps "secession to oppress" is more legitimate when there's a red flag and a bit of a hip, progressive flair to it? :)

Calling them “radical communists” is extremely misleading when their largest party is a center-right democratic party, and their most far left parties are essentially socdems. They, unlike the confederacy, face legitimate oppression against a quasi-fascist Turkish dictator who’s more than happy to suppress their language, culture, and people. Things in Syria aren’t much better either as the Syrian government is also happy to oppress them.

Struggling Kurds adopting a constitutional government and aiming to promote equality in Rojava is thousands of times more preferable to me than a bunch of angry southerners who got pissed off that they won’t be able to dehumanize people for the sake of the economy anymore.

As Wilhelm stated before, the Kurds are far more progressive than even some European states. I’d much rather the US support libertarian socialists fighting against dictators than have my nation bow to one, as Trump is doing. It isn’t neoconservatism to say we shouldn’t turn our backs on allies who need us the most, especially in the face of a brutal regime in Turkey that will stop at nothing to stomp them out.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Fascism is the most oppressive. "Nothing outside the state"

Moreover, the communists make up only a portion of Kurds, and even then, the Marxists don't make up a majority of Kurdish communists.

I find it hard to lable one collective ideology worse than another especially when they're both socialist in nature

The New United States, Muh Roads

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Miencraft wrote:Hey guys, watch me get banned from the internet!

The Republic of China is the only legitimate Chinese government.

F

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote: Marxism is liberal at its core,

Woah, want to explain that hot take for me

The New United States

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Fascism is the most oppressive. "Nothing outside the state"

Perhaps fascists rhetorically embrace the total state more than many reds do, but were they really more oppressive than the commies? Fascism was absolutely terrible and a blight on humanity, but the fascists of the 20th century were practically less totalitarian than their communist counterparts and didn't even come close to matching the Soviets' total war on civil society and private property, even while Mussolini preached "nothing outside the state."

Communism was, practically speaking, more oppressive and objectively deadlier.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Moreover, the communists make up only a portion of Kurds, and even then, the Marxists don't make up a majority of Kurdish communists.

"A portion"? The communists wield all the power in the Kurdish movements in Turkey and Syria. The figurehead of Kurdish independence in Turkey is a jailed communist (Öcalan), the only party of any import in Turkey is the communist Kurdistan Workers' Party, and the Kurdish fighters in Syria, the YPG and YPJ, are very explicitly communistic and adhere to Öcalan's wackadoodle, utopian far-leftism.

If they are only "a portion," then they are the only portion that matters and that has any influence whatsoever.

Jadentopian Order wrote:Calling them “radical communists” is extremely misleading when their largest party is a center-right democratic party, and their most far left parties are essentially socdems.

That's patently false. The most prominent parties and strains of thought among Turkish and Syrian Kurds easily belong to the far-leftism of Öcalan, and there is no right-wing Kurdish party in either of those countries as far as I can tell.

In Iraqi Kurdistan, Barzani of the KRG is supposed to be right-wing, but he's certainly no reflection of the Kurdish independence movement generally or in Turkey or Syria. And that has little to do with the communists opposing the "quasi-fascist" Erdogan of Turkey or those struggling in Rojava.

Miri Islands wrote:I find it hard to lable one collective ideology worse than another especially when they're both socialist in nature

I agree.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Its not hard at all. Marxism is liberal at its core, and is, right or wrong, a development on the thought of the Enlightenment. Fascism is an active rejection of everything from the Enlightenment. It is everything within the state. The exemplification of totalitarianism.

Socialism is better only because it is descended from the enlightenment? I'd say that any project that systematically starves tens and tens of millions of people to death probably isn't better any other ideology, even if it's a bastard child of some dudes you really think were swell.

And, of course, totalitarianism too can be linked to enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes.

Pevvania

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Its not hard at all. Marxism is liberal at its core, and is, right or wrong, a development on the thought of the Enlightenment. Fascism is an active rejection of everything from the Enlightenment. It is everything within the state. The exemplification of totalitarianism.

Lol what? Marxism is a total rejection of liberalism, as is fascism. Marx despised liberal rights theory and natural rights and said so many times.

Narland, The New United States, Miri Islands

Skaveria wrote:I generally support self-governance. If a group of the people no longer wish to be in that society, then they should form their own, whether it be Ireland, Palestine, Catalonia, and yes, the Confederacy.

Would that mean 2/3 of Californians should stay out of the 48 other States of the Union that are more free when they flee the statist mess they made?... :)

The New United States

What we see here is a great visual explanation for why neo-conservatism is a derivative of Trotskyism...

The New United States

Narland wrote:Would that mean 2/3 of Californians should stay out of the 48 other States of the Union that are more free when they flee the statist mess they made?... :)

yeah, I unironically support Calexit, but not because I think they'll form a wonderous society, but because one, as I said, if they vote to leave, I think they have a right to, and two, and more selfishly, they'll take their millions of blue votes with them. All the GOP Californians would inevitably move, and we'd be a better country for having lost them. Sure we might lose Hollywood and some fruit, but Hollywood sucks, and we got Florida and Georgia for fruit. We don't need them at all. They can break off and float into the pacific for all I care.

Miencraft, The New United States, Wyattish

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Its not hard at all. Marxism is liberal at its core, and is, right or wrong, a development on the thought of the Enlightenment. Fascism is an active rejection of everything from the Enlightenment. It is everything within the state. The exemplification of totalitarianism.

Marxism is in no way liberal; If liberal means valuing the individual. Sure, Fascism on it's face seems to be more of a foe to liberty, seeing as though it elevates the nation as a higher priority, and the nation having been the traditional foe of the individual for all of human history, but Communism's elevation of the collective in the same way is just as bad. Both trample the individual.

The New United States, Miri Islands

Skaveria wrote:yeah, I unironically support Calexit, but not because I think they'll form a wonderous society, but because one, as I said, if they vote to leave, I think they have a right to, and two, and more selfishly, they'll take their millions of blue votes with them. All the GOP Californians would inevitably move, and we'd be a better country for having lost them. Sure we might lose Hollywood and some fruit, but Hollywood sucks, and we got Florida and Georgia for fruit. We don't need them at all. They can break off and float into the pacific for all I care.

A better solution would just be to split the state into Coastal California (SF down to San Diego) and Inland California.

Miencraft, The New United States, Miri Islands

Has anyone here started reading the new Bastion Magazine (formerly Austro-Libertarian Magazine)?

It's a really good libertarian publication, endorsed by heroes like Hoppe, Tom Woods, and Jeff Deist, so I figured I'd just suggest it as good reading to anyone here who hasn't heard about it. :)

A really good, recent article about the ongoing conflict between "nihilo-libertarians" and conservative/paleo libertarians:

https://www.bastionmagazine.com/articles/separating-out

Narland, Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Slavery is not to be accepted at all. Secession to oppress is not legitimate.

there is literally nothing wrong with slavery

The New United States wrote:Has anyone here started reading the new Bastion Magazine (formerly Austro-Libertarian Magazine)?

It's a really good libertarian publication, endorsed by heroes like Hoppe, Tom Woods, and Jeff Deist, so I figured I'd just suggest it as good reading to anyone here who hasn't heard about it. :)

A really good, recent article about the ongoing conflict between "nihilo-libertarians" and conservative/paleo libertarians:

https://www.bastionmagazine.com/articles/separating-out

Well, thanks for that. I’ve never heard of the publication until now. I read the article you linked. It was interesting, and I think I can see why shrinking the influence of government shouldn’t be the only priority of libertarians. Maybe someone else here could help explain the whole paleo-libertarian culture war thing though.

I also read this article here: https://www.bastionmagazine.com/articles/wretched-entanglements-the-wwii-non-interventionists

I’m not entirely sure about this one, but I might see how it can be argued that WWII led to greater foreign intervention around the world. I can’t say I agree with everything though, because I know little about this topic and try not to believe everything I read without further investigation. Someone here possibly knows more about this than I do, and this might lead to some interesting discussions.

Narland, The New United States

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