Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Your votes counting the Provinces votes:

Yes: 5

No: 9

Abstain: 2

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote: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

Compulsory education means a more employable workforce. While the idea of optional education is, in theory, a good one, it encoarages the creation of a class of people who are completely uneducated and hence unemployable. While some of these people will turn their lack-of-official-education into a trade (perhaps becoming apprentice carpenters/metal workers/mechanics/skilled workers), many will turn to petty crime, especially in urban areas, where a higher concentration of people means more targets and hence a more sustainable income. Consider the following study; http://ftp.iza.org/dp5000.pdf

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote: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.

True, and this is why I agree in centralized government enforcing standards that the majority agreed on.

The idea that different communities enforce incompatible laws (especially in a country with such divergent opinions on certain issues as the united states) is not a ridiculous statement.

While this depends highly on the size of the communities involved (and I'm assuming these would generally be quite small to avoid tyranny by majority), consider what would happen when a community of strongly religious immigrants that are staunchly anti-gay settle only two blocks away from an extremely secular, liberal community, that praises and celebrates homosexuality? Equally, it is not impossible to envisage a group of more liberally minded americans in the bible belt legalizing abortion while all those around it abhor it. There are issues that many people feel extremely strongly about, and will rarely be happy to compromise on, even if it is "for the benefit of their community". These are also issues that when similarly minded people bind together they generally punish most harshly (for the first example, many religious communities - given absolute free will to punish people as they see fit - could easily be seen to impose incarceration [if not death] for engaging in homosexual activities).

Consider the social liberties you feel most strongly about. How much could you compromise these for the benefit of the community next door?

The Time Alliance wrote: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.

...who would find cooperation very difficult from such a broad cross-section of American life.

The Time Alliance wrote: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.

But the planners would still indirectly support the military. Even if you put an entirely new commission in charge of supplying military goods, it would still rely on the central planners.

The Time Alliance wrote:This is why we do this. And This has been what I have been trying to say from the start.....-_-

-Government Controls Wages

Wage control is very, very dangerous. In an era of economic expansion, wages naturally rise. An overwhelming amount of empirical evidence has supported this phenomenon. Both in Gilded Age America, and in 1920s America, and in 1980s Britain - known to be eras of 'unrestricted capitalism' - wages rose substantially without the need for minimum wage laws. In the Roaring 20s, wages actually increased faster than they did during FDR's tenure of price-fixing and wage-setting. In the former era, real wages rose by 40%. In the latter, real wages rose 8%. Absolutely shocking figures when you consider the priorities of the governments of the times. Between 1983 and 1989, wages grew at a faster rate than in the previous two decades. We only got a minimum wage law in 1998.

Wage controls either foster unemployment, inflation, or both. They also block access to the labour market for young people, immigrants and retirees.

The Time Alliance wrote:-Government Controls Energy,Water, Public Services, Education, Prison Sytem ECT.

First two work in the short-term, but often fall into decay from the inefficiency of nationalised industries. We saw it here in the 1970s. Education can be OK when government-run, but I think a better system would be state-subsidised charter and private schools, with vouchers for the poor. Prison systems would also be ideal private, if there was regulation to ensure rehabilitation programs.

The Time Alliance wrote:-Break-up of overly powerful business(Not WALMART OR THOSE LIKE IT. I mean the BIG ones)

This is unlikely to be seen in social democratic systems, as many governments rely on corporations.

The Time Alliance wrote:-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.

The needless bureaucracy in this would gradually be shed in favour of more direct control by the planning committee.

Pevvania wrote:...who would find cooperation very difficult from such a broad cross-section of American life.

Well We already have something like that (Congress) so I don't see why it wouldn't work.

Pevvania wrote:

But the planners would still indirectly support the military. Even if you put an entirely new commission in charge of supplying military goods, it would still rely on the central planners.

.........Okay.. Unlike most people I'll stop arguing when a better point is presented.

Pevvania wrote:

Wage control is very, very dangerous. In an era of economic expansion, wages naturally rise. An overwhelming amount of empirical evidence has supported this phenomenon. Both in Gilded Age America, and in 1920s America, and in 1980s Britain - known to be eras of 'unrestricted capitalism' - wages rose substantially without the need for minimum wage laws. In the Roaring 20s, wages actually increased faster than they did during FDR's tenure of price-fixing and wage-setting. In the former era, real wages rose by 40%. In the latter, real wages rose 8%. Absolutely shocking figures when you consider the priorities of the governments of the times. Between 1983 and 1989, wages grew at a faster rate than in the previous two decades. We only got a minimum wage law in 1998.

Wage controls either foster unemployment, inflation, or both. They also block access to the labour market for young people, immigrants and retirees.

Wage Control can also be very helpful. No it isn't going to help your High and Might Upper-Class corporate Businesses. Wage control is there to help make sure that the Working Class Doesn't get screwed over by the greed of their Employer.

Pevvania wrote:.

This is unlikely to be seen in social democratic systems, as many governments rely on corporations.

Which Causes Corruption Via Capitalism. you rely on something your going to help them over someone else.

Pevvania wrote:

The needless bureaucracy in this would gradually be shed in favour of more direct control by the planning committee.

Look. To me it seems like your only argument here is "There are no good people in politics. Thus meaning the entire Government is always bad."

The Time Alliance wrote:.........Okay.. Unlike most people I'll stop arguing when a better point is presented.

Nothing wrong with that. I hold very strong views so I rarely back down on a point, but sometimes I recognise when mine has become moot.

The Time Alliance wrote:Wage Control can also be very helpful. No it isn't going to help your High and Might Upper-Class corporate Businesses. Wage control is there to help make sure that the Working Class Doesn't get screwed over by the greed of their Employer.

Well, often employers are actually encouraged to 'screw over' the workers by minimum wage laws, as they'll often cut the cost of labour by reducing hours, laying off workers and mechanising. (Granted, the latter does have the benefit of reducing prices and increasing real income... for those who still have jobs.)

The Time Alliance wrote:Which Causes Corruption Via Capitalism. you rely on something your going to help them over someone else.

Stefan Molyneux came up with a good analogy to address this. "If new regulations make soccer goals twice as wide, what coach will say to his team, 'Listen, I know they've widened the nets, but I think this is crazy. It harms the spirit of the game. So what we're going to do is just aim for the middle of the net! Screw the new rules, I want to preserve the integrity of this game by aiming just for the middle, as if the goals hadn't been widened!'"

I am vehemently anti-corporatist, and I think a certain amount of blame has to go to the corporations that exploit political advantages, but this would not be a problem if there were no government. Politicians gain their strength from corporations, who in return are granted handouts through regulations, subsidies and tax loopholes. Capitalism doesn't corrupt politicians, politicians corrupt capitalism.

The Time Alliance wrote:Look. To me it seems like your only argument here is "There are no good people in politics. Thus meaning the entire Government is always bad."

That's not really what I'm saying. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and whether you like it or not there's no effective way to organise an economy without a central planner. The social democracies of Europe were centrally planned until they collapsed under their own weight.

Pax Osca wrote: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.

I've never had an in-warranty Xbox, but had it repaired twice at two different stores for no extra charge. You only need to pay for an out-of-warranty repair if you go to Microsoft, who'll do it for free if it's in warranty. And since the Red Ring of Death appeared pretty quickly after release...

Even if they did deliberately rig all their consoles, they would only be targeting small markets outside of the US and the UK. What possibly could motivate such a short-sighted business strategy?

Pax Osca wrote: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.

It's motivation for profit does help people. Capitalism is a series of unequal transactions that nevertheless benefit both parties. In exchange for producing for an enterprise, a worker is given employment. In exchange for giving currency, a consumer is given a brand new car. While to many capitalism seems like a heartless system only concerned for its own self-interest, it has produced wondrous results in lifting people out of poverty and driving up real wages. Between 1990 and 2010, world poverty was cut in half, especially so in China and India, which have seen substantial market reforms. (Which aren't exactly known to have Nordic welfare models.) The markets of these nations may seem primitive compared to ours, but they will develop into thriving consumer economies akin to the West where poverty is low and growth is high.

Pax Osca wrote: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.

Thank you, Pax, I'm sure your parents are just as remarkable. Education is important to enable individuals to achieve, but you can definitely get ahead without it. I think we can both agree there.

Pax Osca wrote: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.

You're right in that men are made to be good, but it's incredible that we even have such an ability. Lesser animals don't show such compassion. I believe that a sense of morality, or even the possibility of it, is a gift from God to the human race.

Pax Osca wrote: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.

Nevertheless, I think there is definitely a link between the effect that government spending has on private investment. Every dollar spent by the government is one taken away from a more efficient private sector. Here's a good article investigating whether private charity can replace welfare: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/12/will-private-charity-be-enough/

Pax Osca wrote: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 reasonable concern, but one not really based on empirical evidence. As I mentioned to Time Alliance below (or above, if you don't have NationStates++) real wages tend to rise exponentially when the private sector is less inhibited by the government. The eras of 'cutthroat capitalism' in the Gilded Age and the 1920s saw real wages rise significantly, while Franklin 'Hero of the Poor' Roosevelt's disastrous price-fixing programs brought a pitiful 8% increase in the minimum wage.

Of course debt cycles are diabolical, which is why it is important for private sector unions and workers to negotiate fair terms of contract. One of the great advantages of the 'Nordic Model' is that it favours business/worker contractual negotiation as opposed to regulation, which has worked extremely well in Scandinavia.

Pax Osca wrote: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).

Infrastructure programs are important in some cases - Africa's, for example, are in dire need of improvement - but as an economic stimulus they have often done well to misallocate resources. Why invest capital in inefficient, boondoggled works projects when it could be used to fund enterprises that increase both productive consumption and long-term employment?

Pax Osca wrote:After all, the Banks don't always invest in the right places... as 2008 so nicely showed us :P

You can thank the Fed and the government for that. If not for its 'encouragement' of overly risky loans, corporatist incentives and the enormous Greenspan Credit Expansion, we probably wouldn't even have had a recession of that magnitude. Meltdown by Thomas Woods provides a more in-depth analysis of the crisis.

Pax Osca wrote: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.

Taxes indeed are theft, and the claim that taxation is 'rent' for living on an organisation's land implies that governments own the nations they preside over. But states do not own nations, they merely lead them based on the will of the people. The state is an artificial construct in human history not really created to 'guide' people, but to act as a neutral party in contractual disputes and judicial matters. So if anything, we the people are the moral owners of the government, not the other way around.

So we're either stealing from slave-owners, or we are the natural owners of our own bodies and produce.

Pax Osca wrote: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.

You're right. I'd rather live in absolute squalor in a free world than in the chains of comfortable oppression. Life is about making your own way, not relying on the state to strip you of your dignity and give you a free ride to the grave.

Pevvania wrote:

Well, often employers are actually encouraged to 'screw over' the workers by minimum wage laws, as they'll often cut the cost of labour by reducing hours, laying off workers and mechanising. (Granted, the latter does have the benefit of reducing prices and increasing real income... for those who still have jobs.)

Not benefiting if it HURTS people's lives. Look if we didn't have a Minimum wage then lets see. businesses could pay...Oh I don't know their employees maybe... $0.38 an Hour. Yep. I see how that can support people.

Pevvania wrote:

Stefan Molyneux came up with a good analogy to address this. "If new regulations make soccer goals twice as wide, what coach will say to his team, 'Listen, I know they've widened the nets, but I think this is crazy. It harms the spirit of the game. So what we're going to do is just aim for the middle of the net! Screw the new rules, I want to preserve the integrity of this game by aiming just for the middle, as if the goals hadn't been widened!'"

I am vehemently anti-corporatist, and I think a certain amount of blame has to go to the corporations that exploit political advantages, but this would not be a problem if there were no government. Politicians gain their strength from corporations, who in return are granted handouts through regulations, subsidies and tax loopholes. Capitalism doesn't corrupt politicians, politicians corrupt capitalism.

That didn't take long. The problems that could be started by no Government far outreach the problems Government causes. And wait. Capitalism is the thing where the business pay for candidates correct? Yes I believe so. Corporations with the most money basically determine who wins Presidency. Capitalism thus Corrupts the Presidency.

Pevvania wrote:

That's not really what I'm saying. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and whether you like it or not there's no effective way to organise an economy without a central planner. The social democracies of Europe were centrally planned until they collapsed under their own weight.

You just said it again. "Absolute power corrupts Absolutely." Translated into: Anyone in a position of power becomes corrupt.

Well try it again. All you need are the right people. Experienced people. And besides checks and balances and all that. Put it in a part of Legislature. But only let the committee distribute money in accordance to need. If it's another part of the legislature then the Checks and Balances of Democracy fix it.

Executive- To pass a plan it must go through the executive Branch where the President can Veto it.

judiciary- Once passed this branch can check up and make sure it's constitutional.

Einsiev wrote:Your votes counting the Provinces votes:

Yes: 5

No: 9

Abstain: 2

I vote Yes

Einsiev wrote: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

Yes

The Time Alliance wrote:Not benefiting if it HURTS people's lives. Look if we didn't have a Minimum wage then lets see. businesses could pay...Oh I don't know their employees maybe... $0.38 an Hour. Yep. I see how that can support people.

It's a possibility, but in reality this is undesirable for businesses. Wages set below their market level often harm the quality of goods and the overall productiveness of the business, so it is usually uncompetitive to set wages low. The only exception to this is in a small town with little competition where enterprise can get away with doing it, in which case unionisation is a legitimate means of raising wages.

Your concerns are not supported by empirical evidence. As I mentioned before, economic expansions often result in higher wages for all. Germany, Italy and the Nordic nations don't even have a minimum wage; wages are set through collective bargaining and contractual negotiation. And they have some of the highest real wage rates in the world.

The Time Alliance wrote:That didn't take long. The problems that could be started by no Government far outreach the problems Government causes. And wait. Capitalism is the thing where the business pay for candidates correct? Yes I believe so. Corporations with the most money basically determine who wins Presidency. Capitalism thus Corrupts the Presidency.

Capitalism is the free and unfettered exchange of goods and services. This can never be fully achieved under a state. Capitalism is an economic system built on voluntary transactions, while the state is a coercive institution that leaches of off the productive members of society to its own gain. Capitalism is not about using an unnatural power to force your will upon others, it is about voluntary cooperation to serve your fellow men.

The Time Alliance wrote:You just said it again. "Absolute power corrupts Absolutely." Translated into: Anyone in a position of power becomes corrupt.

Well try it again. All you need are the right people. Experienced people. And besides checks and balances and all that. Put it in a part of Legislature. But only let the committee distribute money in accordance to need. If it's another part of the legislature then the Checks and Balances of Democracy fix it.

Executive- To pass a plan it must go through the executive Branch where the President can Veto it.

judiciary- Once passed this branch can check up and make sure it's constitutional.

I'm not questioning the morality of planners, all I'm saying is that for planning to work effectively (at least in the short term) there needs to be a centralised control. It doesn't matter if the planner chooses to serve alongside the institutions of democracy or not: he has arbitrary power to invalidate them. And if he doesn't do it, one of his successors will.

My goodness what's up with all the yes's?

Einsiev wrote:My goodness what's up with all the yes's?

Regardless of one's cultural opinions on marriage, there's something fundamentally wrong with denying someone equal rights because of their personality traits. In fact I don't think someone's personal choices are anyone's business but their own.

Pevvania wrote:Regardless of one's cultural opinions on marriage, there's something fundamentally wrong with denying someone equal rights because of their personality traits. In fact I don't think someone's personal choices are anyone's business but their own.

Well, I'm Christian and think homosexuals are mislead. Thus, don't believe they deserve marriage or adoption rights. Other than that, I respect them and treat them like I would anyone else.

Einsiev wrote:Well, I'm Christian and think homosexuals are mislead. Thus, don't believe they deserve marriage or adoption rights. Other than that, I respect them and treat them like I would anyone else.

I too am a Christian and have met many sharing similar feelings to yours, but if you believe in limited government you shouldn't believe in the state coercively intruding into people's personal lives.

Einsiev wrote:Well, I'm Christian and think homosexuals are mislead. Thus, don't believe they deserve marriage or adoption rights. Other than that, I respect them and treat them like I would anyone else.

I'm Mormon and believe Homosexuality is bad however I don't see why they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

I'm getting a strong "homosexuality is bad" vibe here. I'm a Christian who understands the cultural disparity between now and Biblical times, and think it more important to "walk in the way of love" (Ephesians 5:2) than to accuse people of being immoral based on orientation.

That said, this issue is not, or at least should not be, the government's business. Marriage in general should not be the government's business. Or any government's business.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I'm getting a strong "homosexuality is bad" vibe here. I'm a Christian who understands the cultural disparity between now and Biblical times, and think it more important to "walk in the way of love" (Ephesians 5:2) than to accuse people of being immoral based on orientation.

That said, this issue is not, or at least should not be, the government's business. Marriage in general should not be the government's business. Or any government's business.

Agreed.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I'm getting a strong "homosexuality is bad" vibe here. I'm a Christian who understands the cultural disparity between now and Biblical times, and think it more important to "walk in the way of love" (Ephesians 5:2) than to accuse people of being immoral based on orientation.

That said, this issue is not, or at least should not be, the government's business. Marriage in general should not be the government's business. Or any government's business.

Agreed.

Pevvania wrote:Agreed.

I'll respond to that long pot in a minute.

If anyone would like to join me in a raid against a communist region, telegram me.

Seeing the rants all over Facebook about Austin Peterson's 'statism', I've become convinced more than ever now that the biggest problem the liberty movement faces today is rabid ideological absolutism. Too often do I see purists denouncing Lincoln as a tyrant, Reagan as a neo-con, the Confederacy as some kind of a libertarian paradise. And while it's fine to hold these views, branding any libertarian who disagrees with them as a traitor to the movement is really hindering our cause. Too often do others see the good as the enemy of the perfect.

Pevvania wrote:Seeing the rants all over Facebook about Austin Peterson's 'statism', I've become convinced more than ever now that the biggest problem the liberty movement faces today is rabid ideological absolutism. Too often do I see purists denouncing Lincoln as a tyrant, Reagan as a neo-con, the Confederacy as some kind of a libertarian paradise. And while it's fine to hold these views, branding any libertarian who disagrees with them as a traitor to the movement is really hindering our cause. Too often do others see the good as the enemy of the perfect.

This has worried me for a long time.

Hey, Pev. Remember when you wondered whether the International Republican Union was worthy to remain an independent region?

There's no way I'm turning back now.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Hey, Pev. Remember when you wondered whether the International Republican Union was worthy to remain an independent region?

There's no way I'm turning back now.

Good to know! It's taken you a while, but the IRU seems to be gaining quite a bit of traction now. Good luck.

Thanks. Between the legislation party and the surprise feature, I'm having a hard time keeping up with the activity surge.

Still, it's no Libertatem.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Thanks. Between the legislation party and the surprise feature, I'm having a hard time keeping up with the activity surge.

Still, it's no Libertatem.

What region? Does it have Political Parties?

1000 recruitment TGs sent..

Muh Roads wrote:1000 recruitment TGs sent..

Holy...I better get my recruitment telegram up.

Muh Roads wrote:1000 recruitment TGs sent..

Nice! I better start buying more stamps, I'm fresh out.

Would anybody be interested in doing a 2017 US politics RP? I was thinking of this scenario: Rand Paul would be President with a slimly Democratic Congress, and the challenge is for Paul to work with the Democrats to pass his agenda. What do you guys think?

The Time Alliance wrote:What region? Does it have Political Parties?

International Republican Union

It currently has no political parties, as I am not a fan of dividing a united populace into warring factions. Granted, nations could start their own if they wanted to, but any party system would be purely private-owned.

Pevvania wrote:Would anybody be interested in doing a 2017 US politics RP? I was thinking of this scenario: Rand Paul would be President with a slimly Democratic Congress, and the challenge is for Paul to work with the Democrats to pass his agenda. What do you guys think?

Rand Paul be president? Hahahahahaha....That's a scary scenario

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:International Republican Union

It currently has no political parties, as I am not a fan of dividing a united populace into warring factions. Granted, nations could start their own if they wanted to, but any party system would be purely private-owned.

Uh-huh.

The Time Alliance wrote:Rand Paul be president? Hahahahahaha....That's a scary scenario

I sincerely believe that he can do it. All candidates need a strategy that can appeal to a base as wide as possible - Lincoln held a moderate position on slavery while campaigning to preserve the Union, Reagan united socially conservative Democrats and economic libertarians to form a strong coalition, Clinton cast himself as a moderate candidate that would balance the budget and fix the economy. I think Rand Paul will act conservatively in the Primaries and promise to roll back the years of Obama, while once he gets the nomination he'll harshly criticise Bush and demonise Hillary is a continuation of Bush-Obama. Attacking both parties, at least once he's the Republican candidate, could do him a world of good to appeal to moderates.

But anyway, do you want to participate in the RP?

Pevvania wrote:I sincerely believe that he can do it. All candidates need a strategy that can appeal to a base as wide as possible - Lincoln held a moderate position on slavery while campaigning to preserve the Union, Reagan united socially conservative Democrats and economic libertarians to form a strong coalition, Clinton cast himself as a moderate candidate that would balance the budget and fix the economy. I think Rand Paul will act conservatively in the Primaries and promise to roll back the years of Obama, while once he gets the nomination he'll harshly criticise Bush and demonise Hillary is a continuation of Bush-Obama. Attacking both parties, at least once he's the Republican candidate, could do him a world of good to appeal to moderates.

But anyway, do you want to participate in the RP?

I hope he doesn't. We need a third party yes. But not a Libertarian, Green or Marujuana party guy.

Yes. I love Role-Plays. What roles will be open?

Well, I'm at home with a sprained ankle. This is so fun.

Einsiev wrote:Well, I'm at home with a sprained ankle. This is so fun.

Let's initiate propaganda.

Only joining the Democratic - Republican Party can prevent that from happening again. Join the DRP!

Sounds fun.

The Anti-Corporatist Party - because small businesses are better than corporations at everything, including annoying propaganda.

we should just abolish the regional government

Anarchist Movement wrote:we should just abolish the regional government

OH HECK NO!

The Time Alliance wrote:I hope he doesn't. We need a third party yes. But not a Libertarian, Green or Marujuana party guy.

Yes. I love Role-Plays. What roles will be open?

Maybe we could have:

-President Paul (me)

-Vice President (Rubio?)

-House Majority/Senate Minority Leaders (R)

-Senate Majority/House Minority Leaders (D)

-Senator Elizabeth Warren (D)

-A handful of Independents and Third-Partiers in both chambers, just to shake things up

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Pevvania wrote:Maybe we could have:

-President Paul (me)

-Vice President (Rubio?)

-House Majority/Senate Minority Leaders (R)

-Senate Majority/House Minority Leaders (D)

-Senator Elizabeth Warren (D)

-A handful of Independents and Third-Partiers in both chambers, just to shake things up

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Okay. Not playing Dems or Reps.

Socialist Party in Senate or maybe unity party....or pirate party!

Has the Socialist Party ever succeeded in getting anyone into Senate?

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Has the Socialist Party ever succeeded in getting anyone into Senate?

Sadly no. Because America is too ignorant and stuck in the "Red scare."

They won something in Seattle.

The Time Alliance wrote:Okay. Not playing Dems or Reps.

Socialist Party in Senate or maybe unity party....or pirate party!

You could play Bernie Sanders?

Pevvania wrote:You could play Bernie Sanders?

Political party

Independent

Other political

affiliations

Liberty Union Party

Affiliated non-member

Democratic Party

Vermont Progressive Party

Me like his Policies so far....let me read them real fast.

The Time Alliance wrote:Political party

Independent

Other political

affiliations

Liberty Union Party

Affiliated non-member

Democratic Party

Vermont Progressive Party

Me like his Policies so far....let me read them real fast.

Bernie Sanders if the kind of guy who can make good points but never good solutions. I respect him for having the balls to criticise Obama, as opposed to simply falling in line with the statist drones.

Pevvania wrote:Bernie Sanders if the kind of guy who can make good points but never good solutions. I respect him for having the balls to criticise Obama, as opposed to simply falling in line with the statist drones.

.......And that's the first person you thought for me?

Pevvania wrote:Bernie Sanders if the kind of guy who can make good points but never good solutions.

.......dang.......

The Time Alliance wrote:.......And that's the first person you thought for me?

.......dang.......

My only personal gripe with him is that he seems to hold the American definition of socialism. He claims to be a socialist and then points to Scandinavia as "proof that it works".

But regardless, he's a relatively independent politician who votes with his conscience rather than the party line, so he'd suit you.

Pevvania wrote:My only personal gripe with him is that he seems to hold the American definition of socialism. He claims to be a socialist and then points to Scandinavia as "proof that it works".

But regardless, he's a relatively independent politician who votes with his conscience rather than the party line, so he'd suit you.

What would that definition of Socialism be? I dislike the American Definition of everything so.

Doesn't vote on PArty Lines. Okay. Let me read his policies. again. I'll decide.

Polling conducted in August 2011 by Public Policy Polling found that Sanders' approval rating was 67% and his disapproval rating 28%, making him then the third-most popular senator in the country.

Great place to start.

I Don't Support Sanders environmental Policies but I can play a Deranged Global warming Believer.

I Support his DISCLOSE act.

I support his Healthcare act.

I support his LGBT rights.

I support the fact he is Social Liberal (To an Extent.)

I don't support his Budget...I don't even know how to play as a budgeted fool.

He had a 'Sanders for President' run in 2012. I LOVE THIS! I would've liked the Democrats....

"The real issue here, if you look at the Koch Brothers' agenda, is: look at what many of the extreme right-wing people believe. Obamacare is just the tip of the iceberg. These people want to abolish the concept of the minimum wage, they want to privatize the Veteran's Administration, they want to privatize Social Security, end Medicare as we know it, massive cuts in Medicaid, wipe out the EPA, you don't have an Environmental Protection Agency anymore, Department of Energy gone, Department of Education gone. That is the agenda. And many people don't understand that the Koch Brothers have poured hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into the Tea Party and two other kinds of ancillary organizations to push this agenda. ”

—Senator Bernie Sanders, MSNBC News (October 7, 2013)[50][51] (regarding the US government shutdown of 2013).

I like this guy.

The Time Alliance wrote:What would that definition of Socialism be? I dislike the American Definition of everything so.

Doesn't vote on PArty Lines. Okay. Let me read his policies. again. I'll decide.

Collective ownership/management of the means of production either through workers' cooperation or through state control of the economy. A mixed economy with state-controlled healthcare, education and energy does not qualify as socialism. The American view (espoused by the Tea Party and seemingly accepted by everyone else) is that corporatist healthcare (the ACA) is in fact socialism and that all of Europe is a socialist dictatorship, with quasi-socialist nations like Venezuela being full-on communism.

Indeed, he actually introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act with Ron Paul.

Pevvania wrote:Collective ownership/management of the means of production either through workers' cooperation or through state control of the economy. A mixed economy with state-controlled healthcare, education and energy does not qualify as socialism. The American view (espoused by the Tea Party and seemingly accepted by everyone else) is that corporatist healthcare (the ACA) is in fact socialism and that all of Europe is a socialist dictatorship, with quasi-socialist nations like Venezuela being full-on communism.

Indeed, he actually introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act with Ron Paul.

Lets see......America is as Usual Wrong. Europe is actually mostly a Right Wing-Authoritarian country.

The Time Alliance wrote:-snip-

I love hearing statists accuse libertarianism as some kind of a shadow ideology created by the Koch Brothers to advance their agenda. I didn't even know who they were before Being Liberal Facebook drones started bringing them up. It's also funny how they and Rupert Murdoch are literally the only big businessmen I can think of who support the ideology; the rest either fall in the Republican "More Subsidies" Party or the Democratic "More Loopholes" Party.

The Time Alliance wrote:Lets see......America is as Usual Wrong. Europe is actually mostly a Right Wing-Authoritarian country.

Country? :P I definitely wouldn't go that far. Depends where you go, but most nations here have large welfare states and draconian gun, tax and banking policies. But in the past few decades countries like Britain and Sweden have begun to move towards neo-liberalism, a trend which will most likely spread to other countries. If you look at France, their 'socialist' President has recently abandoned his tax-and-spend agenda to embrace budget and rate cuts.

But really, let's just get rid of this whole governing apparatus thing

Anarchist Movement wrote:But really, let's just get rid of this whole governing apparatus thing

NO!

Anarchist Movement wrote:But really, let's just get rid of this whole governing apparatus thing

But... but... who would post the RMB messages?

Pevvania wrote:But... but... who would post the RMB messages?

Anarchy= Evil.

Easy as that. Anarchy is the #1 worst system of Government (a lack thereof is still a form of government).

The Time Alliance wrote:Anarchy= Evil.

Easy as that. Anarchy is the #1 worst system of Government (a lack thereof is still a form of government).

Philosophically, I am an anarchist. I despise the state. But practically I am a minarchist. Anarchy would completely vaporise private property rights, and the opportunity for new, more tyrannical states is just far too great.

Pevvania wrote:Philosophically, I am an anarchist. I despise the state. But practically I am a minarchist. Anarchy would completely vaporise private property rights, and the opportunity for new, more tyrannical states is just far too great.

I don't know the exact term that would describe me. Probably Democratic Socialist.

I would probably be a Fusionist

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

The Time Alliance wrote:I don't know the exact term that would describe me. Probably Democratic Socialist.

The term 'democratic socialist' is misleading, as it does not believe in the abolition of capitalism, but rather the 'adjustment of it'. This flies in the face of central socialist doctrine.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:I would probably be a Fusionist

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

I used to be a Fusionist, but then I took a Hayek to the knee.

Pevvania wrote:I used to be a Fusionist, but then I took a Hayek to the knee.

HAHAHA! To funny Pev.. to funny.

Pevvania wrote:The term 'democratic socialist' is misleading, as it does not believe in the abolition of capitalism, but rather the 'adjustment of it'. This flies in the face of central socialist doctrine.

I used to be a Fusionist, but then I took a Hayek to the knee.

Actually the true definition of Democratic Socialism is a Socialist Economic system alongside a Democratic Government.

I believe in this but with a little capitalism thrown in.

So I'd be a....ummm Mixed Economic Democratic Socialist?

The Time Alliance wrote:Actually the true definition of Democratic Socialism is a Socialist Economic system alongside a Democratic Government.

I believe in this but with a little capitalism thrown in.

So I'd be a....ummm Mixed Economic Democratic Socialist?

The problem with this is that 'a little bit of capitalism' completely defeats the point of it being a socialist system. What you have proposed to me - a mixed economy where 'essential' services are government-controlled - is known as social democracy in Europe, and was quite a thing until the 1970s.

Muh Roads wrote:HAHAHA! To funny Pev.. to funny.

Mises that you're jealous of my marginal punductivity.

Pevvania wrote:Mises that you're jealous of my marginal punductivity.

What are you trying to Sen?

Muh Roads wrote:What are you trying to Sen?

Don't you mean Say?

Anyone going to attend one of the YAL state conventions?

Pevvania wrote:Anyone going to attend one of the YAL state conventions?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/1623758_782664715094775_1598021588_n.png

Pevvania wrote:The problem with this is that 'a little bit of capitalism' completely defeats the point of it being a socialist system. What you have proposed to me - a mixed economy where 'essential' services are government-controlled - is known as social democracy in Europe, and was quite a thing until the 1970s.

Mises that you're jealous of my marginal punductivity.

Social Democracy...... that'd make me a Social Democrat which is almost the same as a Democratic Socialist.

Pevvania wrote:Don't you mean Say?

Oops. That was a Strong mistake. Sylla me.

Post self-deleted by The Time Alliance.

The Time Alliance wrote:Social Democracy...... that'd make me a Social Democrat which is almost the same as a Democratic Socialist.

Correction. I am a Moderate Progressive Centre Social Democrat. Which is mucho Grande compared to democratic Socialism.

So who's interested in the US politics RP?

Pevvania wrote:So who's interested in the US politics RP?

Maybe.

Probably.

Sure.

Pevvania wrote:So who's interested in the US politics RP?

Yep. I like it. Bernie here I come.

Miencraft wrote:Maybe.

Probably.

Sure.

What part do you want to play in 2017 America? It's a split Congress with the major leaders available to play.

Another region I have liberated:

National Socialist Schutzstaffel

Note: the regional flag of this region should be the regional flag of REATO.

Good job, Neo-Con. And I'll consider it.

I wrote a little (8,000 word) treatise on Keynesian economics and a few other statist fallacies here, if anyone wants to read it: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=pevvania/detail=factbook/id=220993

How many people have taken the F scale?

The Time Alliance wrote:How many people have taken the F scale?

?

Pevvania wrote:?

The California F-scale is a 1947 personality test, designed by Theodor W. Adorno and others to measure the authoritarian personality.

I take a lot of Political Personality tests for fun just to see where I am compared to others.

My F-Scale rating was 3.3 which is typical of an American.

Link: http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm

The Time Alliance wrote:The California F-scale is a 1947 personality test, designed by Theodor W. Adorno and others to measure the authoritarian personality.

I take a lot of Political Personality tests for fun just to see where I am compared to others.

My F-Scale rating was 3.3 which is typical of an American.

Link: http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm

2.93

I'm a liberal airhead, apparently.

Pevvania wrote:2.93

I'm a liberal airhead, apparently.

Haha

Pevvania wrote:What part do you want to play in 2017 America? It's a split Congress with the major leaders available to play.

Perhaps the House Majority leader, if that list you posted earlier is indeed the final list of roles.

Names? No clue, [jokes] you're my President, do that for me. [/jokes]

I'm gonna give this a shot. Feel free to give me your opinions my fellow Libertatens.. This may be a bit of a controversial act i authored here. I will amend and or drop it all together based on your reactions.

[B]ARMA[/B]

Advocating Responsible Military Act

[B]Section I[/B]

Purpose

Subsection I

To create a more responsible military in Libertatem

Subsection II

To create a more organized military in Libertatem

Subsection III

To be better prepared against coercion, spying, and extortion.

[B]Section II[/B]

Creating a probationary period for new recruits

Subsection I

New arrivals to Libertatem must be deemed active for a term of 3 weeks before joining the Libertatem military.

Subsection II

Missions deemed high profile I.E. "Top Secret" will only be released to 3 month veterans

Subsection III

Missions can be deemed high profile by the incumbent President and/or Manager of Military affairs only

[B]Section III[/B]

Probationary period exclusions

Subsection I

A new arrival to Libertatem may join the military early (before the probationary period) under one of the conditions in the following subsections

Subsection II

A vote of 3 or more members of the incumbent board

Subsection III

A recommendation from the incumbent President and/or the Manager of Military Affairs

[B]Section IV[/B]

Military organization

Subsection I

It will now be a responsibility of the Manager of Military Affairs to keep record of all nations participating in the Libertatem military.

Subsection II

Raids can only be conducted with approval from the incumbent Manager of Military Affairs and/or the President

Subsection III

This does not take away the boards power to declare war or declare peace as defined in the constitution (Article I, Section I, Subsection III)

Subsection IV

This does not take away the constitutional right of nations to bear arms in Libertatem as defined in Article VIII, Section I, Subsection II

-Authored by Muh Roads

Mind you, this is the first proposal i have written in years... lol

Pevvania wrote:2.93

I'm a liberal airhead, apparently.

3.2

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American. LOL :P

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:That's...actually pretty good.

Thank ya!

Copainia wrote:Hi guys.

Welcome to Libertatem!

Muh Roads wrote:-snip-

I like, but we'd need to make sure that the Military Manager keeps a tight record of all activities that fall in his jurisdiction. I will be supporting this bill.

Pevvania wrote:I like, but we'd need to make sure that the Military Manager keeps a tight record of all activities that fall in his jurisdiction. I will be supporting this bill.

So maybe I should add a little something to ensure there is checks and balances? Maybe a mandatory quarterly (every so many weeks months whatever.. suggestions?) review to the board or president?

Thank you.

Muh Roads wrote:So maybe I should add a little something to ensure there is checks and balances? Maybe a mandatory quarterly (every so many weeks months whatever.. suggestions?) review to the board or president?

Thank you.

Sure.

[B]ELECTIONS NEXT WEEK[/B]

Board elections begin next Tuesday the 25th and end on Thursday the 27th. The current Board is composed of these members:

Seat 1: [nation=short]Muh Roads[/nation] (RLP)

Seat 2: [nation=short]Humpheria[/nation] (RLP)

Seat 3: [nation=short]Ronald Reagan and Rick Grimes[/nation] (RLP)

Seat 4: [nation=short]Miencraft[/nation] (ACOP)

Seat 5: [nation=short]Alchandria[/nation] (LOP)

To challenge one of these Seats, announce your candidacy between now and Tuesday. I'd like to see some healthy competition with the RLP, so I encourage as many of you as you can to run.

Members of the RLP challenging incumbent Boardsmen in the RLP will be primaried.

Well, where to begin?

Firstly, I very much support the bill offered up by my colleague and the Board Majority Leader Muh Roads. I encourage the people to support this as well, a superbly written amendment vital to our regional security.

Secondly, as Board Chairman, I would like to lay some things out. At the beginning of this last term, the Board decided on a new developed caucus system. As we have so many parties, the party with the most members is known as the Majority Caucus, it elects the Majority Leader (Muh Roads) who leads that caucus. The other parties are caucused together as the Minority Caucus, they elect the Minority Leader (Miencraft) who leads the caucus. When the two caucuses are decided, they meet in session and vote between the Majority and Minority leader for Chairman. Then the caucus that offered up the Chairman gets a new Leader. So, if u want to be a part of this, rally your troops and the campaign buttons and come on down to the Campaign Trail!

Thirdly, I would like to announce my candidacy for Seat Two in the Board.

VOTE HUMPHERIA FOR SEAT TWO!!!

Why should you vote for Humpheria?

Experience

I have served as Board Chairman for two terms. I have fulfilled the description of both of my responsibilities to the letter. And I have made mistakes, which is the best teacher, I know what works. Many old timers can attest to my shortcomings.

Integrity

I have never been a closed book. When asked a question I answer truthfully and honestly, for those that remember, I didn't try to cover up or spin anything in the course of my little "mistake". An all-around good guy.

Patriotism

I am a Libertaten through and through. I help in the war on Communism whenever I can, and would gladly lay down my existence for this region. Libertatem is my home and I would do anything to serve her in the best way I can.

Conservative Minded

Ronald Reagan is my hero. I believe in fiscal responsibility and holding our elected officials accountable for what they do in office. I identify with Libertarians and fully support and agree with the RLP.

The Best Choice for Libertatem

I have proved countless times that I am the right and best choice for the second seat of the Board. I have officially been a resident of this region for over 120 days, and everyone of those days, I have done my best to serve this region, and I've only just begun.

So, join me as we ride into the horizon of Libertatem, ride into a better future. Vote Humpheria for the Second Seat of the Board.

Ill amend my bill soon and repost it for consideration. I really appreciate everyone's support.

I would also like to announce my candidacy for seat one.

Muh Roads and Humpheria have gone remarkably far to advance the region, enrich our traditions and strengthen our democratic institutions. The RLP endorses them both for reelection.

There's a topic on the forums entitled something like 'What would your three amendments to the Constitution be?'

For the US, I'd have

-a balanced budget amendment

-an amendment capping rates at 30% of income and banning taxation of lower-income groups

-an amendment affirming the right to secede.

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