Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

The State Of Deseret wrote:...No.

I thought my time was done. But there is a time when all of us have a purpose again. A time all of us can shine and with a one-party system forming it is time to go back in time. To my time.

The hell do you mean, one-party system.

President is gonna be an ACOP. That doesn't sound like one-party to me.

The Saifullah wrote:I really do hate capitalism and I believe Libertarianism is a product of the bourgeoisie. You don't catch on quick do you?

You gonna leave on your own or am I gonna have to ban this puppet as well on account of how you're just evading your ban?

Saying 'Don't ban this puppet' doesn't mean we won't. By law, you are a fugitive here and will be banned on sight. Once someone with access to the founder account gets on.

Well... Until then I will remain "evading my ban."

In other news, at a 4-1 decision (4 for, 1 absent), Pevvania has been elected Chairman for the January term.

And in even better news, Jan. 1st will mark one year of elected Boards.

The Saifullah wrote:Well... Until then I will remain "evading my ban."

Goodbye. Don't come back.

The thing is, I don't care what your law says, why should I listen to you? You law means nothing to me now.

Miencraft wrote:The hell do you mean, one-party system.

President is gonna be an ACOP. That doesn't sound like one-party to me.

...Does ACOP support most RLP stuff?

The State Of Deseret wrote:...Does ACOP support most RLP stuff?

They're similar, but as you can tell by how CI won and not I, there are several differences.

Though I am a member of the ACOP, so they're not really that different. But they're still sorta different. Generally tend to lean the same way, but if you've noticed their stance on the War tends to differ from that of the RLP.

You really should password this...

But really, I am leaving this time...

Just take the hint the first time and don't come back. You just look stupid, since you've already lost and we'll just keep banning you if you try to come back.

The banjection trebuchet is like a banjection catapult, only better.

Alderney And Liberty City wrote:Harsh

He's banned. Thus, so are all his puppets.

Miencraft wrote:They're similar, but as you can tell by how CI won and not I, there are several differences.

Though I am a member of the ACOP, so they're not really that different. But they're still sorta different. Generally tend to lean the same way, but if you've noticed their stance on the War tends to differ from that of the RLP.

Damn it.

And thus I go back into hiding. Until the RLP rules once more. To reveal my true potential.

The State Of Deseret wrote:Damn it.

And thus I go back into hiding. Until the RLP rules once more. To reveal my true potential.

Just run for the frickin Board and quit complaining, sheesh.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Time for more banjection. *readies banjection catapult*

I'm very tempted to say "remove kebab" now.

REMOVE KEBAB ALL KEBAB BAD KEBAB 5.45 WP GO

Rotgeheim wrote:REMOVE KEBAB ALL KEBAB BAD KEBAB 5.45 WP GO

Speaking of Removing Kebab...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxUU3zncVmI

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Speaking of Removing Kebab...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxUU3zncVmI

SERBIA STRONK GOD IS SERB

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Anyway, another victory for Freedom!

Greater Communist Region

Congrats everyone!

Poor The Communist Region, they never really recovered eh?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Poor The Communist Region, they never really recovered eh?

I really like how much credit this Sornia guy is giving us. He really seems like an angry little twerp, but at least he tries. I applaud his effort.

Revive the chat! DO IT

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

I hope you're ready, CI, you get to screw everything up starting tomorrow.

Miencraft wrote:I hope you're ready, CI, you get to screw everything up starting tomorrow.

Despite winning the Presidency, he will still not take the 2014 Driest Humour Award.

[B]Board Chairman Inaugural Speech[/B]

Thank you, members of the Board, and the people of Libertatem, for electing me as Chairman of the Board. I have held many positions in this region since my arrival here a little under two years ago - Board Member, Military Commander, President, and then Commander again. Chairman is a position I've never held, and it feels somewhat sudden for me to be thrust into this position so quickly after my first democratic ascension to the position. But I am not overwhelmed. I have a clear legislative agenda for the coming weeks that I'd like to tell you about.

The RLP will retain its 4/5ths supermajority on the Board, holds 3 out of 5 cabinet positions in the incoming administration and has many more representatives in the House. So, clearly, it would be very difficult to pass any of Conservative Idealism's agenda without the support of our party.

Thankfully, the President-Elect and I have been close friends and allies in this region for a very long time. We can openly and easily communicate about any issue. We advise each other frequently on foreign and domestic policy. In fact, he was the co-founder of the RLP when it was formed in 2013. He and I have largely shared goals and principles, which will make bipartisan cooperation in the Thirteenth Board almost effortless. The President-Elect has reached out to govern based on policy instead of politics - and the new Board will do the same.

The Chairman's Agenda for the New Year

-[B]TRANSPARENCY[/B]: I am committed to making the Board more open and democratic. We will hold as many votes and discussions in the public sphere as possible in order to let our constituents know just what we're doing, except when it concerns a sensitive issue such as regional security.

-[B]DEREGULATION[/B]: the RLP will push to streamline the bureaucracy, clarify the law and eliminate inconsistencies. This is a goal not only of our party, but also of the PRR.

-[B]BIPARTISANSHIP[/B]: as previously mentioned, we will work with ACOP and the PRR to provide common-sense, libertarian solutions to the challenges that our region faces.

-[B]STRENGTH[/B]: our support of continuing the War on Statism is unwavering. However, in some areas we recognise the need to improve or reform some military policies. Mobilisation needs improvement, as does the speed of covert operations. We will work with the Conservative Government and the War Department to continue to fight the forces of statism abroad, as well as working to improve the army's effectiveness. We will oppose any attempts by anyone to end or scale back the war effort.

I hope this proved informative. Good day, God bless you, and here's to a new year for Libertatem even stronger and more prosperous than this one!

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Poor The Communist Region, they never really recovered eh?

After we orchestrated the destruction of their region and both successors, they could never regain any enthusiasm that they had previously.

Reply to our friend [nation=short]Socialist Federative Republic of Sornia[/nation] in the USSR:

I'm going to censor it, but I'm also going to respond. I can't let you spew libertarian propaganda...

Can't have the "commoners" exposed to the truth, eh? How "liberating" of you to restrict free speech.

I'm not opposed to liberty, that is a clear ad hominem attack.

Being opposed to libertarianism, by definition, means you oppose liberty, because it is an ideology that seeks to advance liberty as the highest political goal.

That is complete, utter, sh*t. The market is not the people,

Well, it obviously is, since it's made up of people!

quite to the contrary. In fact, the market is detrimental to the people. You say collectivism is slavery? So, let me get this straight:A system that focuses on the redistribution of wealth according to need and contribution is unfair, while a system in which major corporations and the market dictate people's lives is fair...You seem to lack basic logic.

Loaded question. Any form of initiated coercion is inherently unfair. No, I want a system where individuals dictate their own lives. A world where I can choose where and how to work, where I can choose whether or not to use drugs, to eat unhealthy foods, to drive a different type of vehicle, to not wear a seatbelt, to be able to defend myself, to be able to get married to who I please, to protest where I want, to live free of rulers. Individual liberty and self-ownership is what I seek. In a society of freedom, corporate power is greatly diminished, as they are totally accountable to the consumer and the marketplace. In your ideal system, there's just one corporation: the government.

You want me to provide a source? Here it is:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1G-V9ynDFos-DgYybvpU9nUYWEqHSyG8xfJKBpoJ0Pxw/viewanalytics

I agree, it is irrelevant to the debate, it's just fun to point out how juvenile most of you are. You scream about ''ANARCHY'' and ''LIBERTY'' without knowing what either of those concepts are...

Nice, a Reddit poll of 688 people out of a movement of many thousand adherents. My God, that's definite proof of the white cis heteronormative capitalist conspiracy!!!!1

What's even funnier is that you didn't even read the poll you linked correctly. 18% of respondents identified as 18 or younger, with a majority of 69% claiming to be between the ages of 19 and 30. Just 42% of respondents identified as unemployed students. The poll makes no mention of race. Your sorry excuse for an "argument" is full of lies.

This is due to the fact that the majority of you are white, privileged, rich, american kids...

Well, I'm a working class mixed-race Australian and a philosophical anarchist. But even so, you don't need to have any particular physical or personality trait to be right. Stop being such a blatant racist.

Just because ''your one example works'' doesn't mean capitalism works.

Of course it's not ultimate proof. The source I linked was hardly convincing; it just stated the obvious, which is that markets lift people out of poverty. I have a habit of collecting empirical studies of an economic nature, and I could link you to multiple studies confirming the virtues of free markets.

-Most literature reviews of the subject find that increased economic freedom - lowering levels of taxation, government spending, regulations, and other intrusions - and market liberalisation stimulate higher rates of growth.

-The World Bank’s International Trade Department found in a review of over 100 countries over 30 years that the more economically free a country was, the faster its economy grew. (http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5660)

-The Fraser Institute, which publishes an annual world index of economic freedom accounting for factors such as market openness, the rule of law, limited government and regulatory efficiency, has repeatedly found that countries which score higher on the economic freedom indexes have higher living standards, higher average incomes, less corruption, less political violence, and faster economic growth than countries which score lower on the index. For example, the quartile of nations with the freest markets 1990-2010 experienced an average annual economic growth rate of 3.56%, while the least free quartile averaged 1.58% growth. (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/measuring-government-in-the-21st-century.pdf)

-Similar literature reviews find that taxation and government spending, which generally harm economic freedom, are damaging to economic growth. (Iacono. C, Palumbo. B (2014) In Defense of Classical Liberalism: An Economic Analysis)

-One study that is particularly interesting is one by leading Keynesian economists David and Christina Romer, the latter of which was one of the architects of US President Obama’s economic stimulus plan and pushed for $1.8 trillion in government funds to be spent on reviving the economy. Regarding the effect of taxes on economic growth, they found that “a tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers GDP by about 3 percent.” (Romer. C, D (2007) The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks http://www.nber.org/papers/w13264)

Here's a though: you are aware that in the society you propose, that employer of yours could, theoretically pay you 1 dollar per year and have no sanctions placed on him...He DOES exploit you. Your labour has no worth, only the commodities you produce for him.

Here's a thought*, you mean.

No, he doesn't. "Exploitation" in the socialist sense is just a silly, arbitrary value applied by third parties to other groups. 1 dollar per year is a lot of money to some people who are poorer than you and I. In the Third World, people have had to get by on much less than that. Third World workers line up for sweatshop jobs, for example, by the thousand, because they pay so much better than back-breaking agricultural work. At the end of the day, anything that participating parties voluntarily agree to is morally virtuous, and between the parties to the agreement. Why is it your business that a kid takes a dime to mow somebody's lawn? Again: no agreement is made in the market unless it is mutually beneficial.

But in, for example, a Western nation that became anarcho-capitalist, a dollar a year for any conventional form of work would be a rarity, as supply and demand would mean that few workers would accept a wage that low. (Unless 1 dollar would be, currency-wise, worth more than it is now.)

False, there are plenty of fascists operating in there, just take a look at your RMB.

"Look at your RMB" is not proof of anything. It's about as useful as "go read a book". As far as I know, the only fascist who resides here was a chap named Greater Fascism, who no longer lives here. Please direct me to any fascists you suspect living here. We respect differing political opinions, including the most ignorant ones, so I won't do anything if I find any right-wing socialists here. But it'd be interested to know who they are.

Nazi Germany, Fascist Paraguay, Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain were not socialist by any means. They implemented corporatism and state capitalism...literally the opposite of collectivist socialism.

Corporatism is a form of statism and collectivism. It is de facto state socialism in practice - control by coercion rather than expropriation, as [nation=short]Liberosia[/nation] would put it. The fascist ideology has a largely unclear economic policy, but fascism by definition necessarily means that it advocates some form of over-reaching state control, either in the form of corporatism or socialism. Again, this has varied from regime to regime. Fascist Italy directly nationalised 3/4ths of its economy, and Nazi Germany de facto nationalised it via corporatism. Regardless, these ideologies are intellectually and historically far more in line with socialists than they are with liberals, whom they despise.

Yes, liberty is over-valued. It was liberty that set Hitler in power, after all (Majority in the reichstag)

No it freaking wasn't. No form of statism is liberty. Especially not democracy, which in theory and practice is majority rule. Majority rule brought Hitler to power, not voluntaryism and self-ownership.

That's called negative freedom, you idiot. Freedom from outside forces. However, the market still dictates how they should act, according to what principle...basically, the worst form of exploitation...

I already answered this. Markets wield a very strong influence over people's lives, but this is a natural form of control that cannot be avoided, but usually leads to the most desirable social outcomes. But do explain how majority rule and state dictatorship are "superior" forms of control?

This is absolute bullhonkey...You didn't even refute what I said...Your argument doesn't stand up. I have to regurgitate my previous arguments...

I refuted just about everything you said, actually. But tell me if I missed a spot so I can blow it to pieces too. :)

False, you believe in an unregulated economy. An unregulated economy means NO REGULATION...allowing for whatever activity the bourgeois see fit.

Oh boy, the "regulations protect us!!!" fallacy! It must be that time of the day. Educate yourself: http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies/RegulationProtectsUs

I believe in an economy unregulated by government. The forces of the market are the fairest, most just regulatory body, purely for the reason that companies cannot do anything that consumers don't like. Government regulation, in action, is just an intricate network of corporate subsidies.

You are an IDIOT! I have to quote Capital, chapter one for this:''Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.''

This is just a longer restatement of what you originally claimed. None of this changes the fact that a freaking spoon digging a hole is not worth more than drill digging one!

Nope, not ad hominem. You don't even know how that f*cking works. Ad hominem means accusing your argumentation of being weak simply on the basis of previous statements that may have been moronic.

Calm down buddy! Attacking a person's character to undermine their argument is an ad hominem. Here's a handy link to the definition: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem These are ad hominems:

"it's just fun to point out how juvenile most of you are"

That's called confirmation bias, idiot

the majority of you are white, privileged, rich, american kids...

That's called negative freedom, you idiot.

You are an IDIOT!

Copy and pasting someone else's work, then answering a refutation with a peppering of personal insults. You're like school in July - no class. Honestly, how old are you? Thirteen? I don't mind debating a thirteen-year old. All of us were young at some point, after all. Just let me know if you are if I need to go a little easier on you. :)

Pevvania wrote:Reply to our friend [nation=short]Socialist Federative Republic of Sornia[/nation] in the USSR:

I'm going to censor it, but I'm also going to respond. I can't let you spew libertarian propaganda...

Can't have the "commoners" exposed to the truth, eh? How "liberating" of you to restrict free speech.

I'm not opposed to liberty, that is a clear ad hominem attack.

Being opposed to libertarianism, by definition, means you oppose liberty, because it is an ideology that seeks to advance liberty as the highest political goal.

That is complete, utter, sh*t. The market is not the people,

Well, it obviously is, since it's made up of people!

quite to the contrary. In fact, the market is detrimental to the people. You say collectivism is slavery? So, let me get this straight:A system that focuses on the redistribution of wealth according to need and contribution is unfair, while a system in which major corporations and the market dictate people's lives is fair...You seem to lack basic logic.

Loaded question. Any form of initiated coercion is inherently unfair. No, I want a system where individuals dictate their own lives. A world where I can choose where and how to work, where I can choose whether or not to use drugs, to eat unhealthy foods, to drive a different type of vehicle, to not wear a seatbelt, to be able to defend myself, to be able to get married to who I please, to protest where I want, to live free of rulers. Individual liberty and self-ownership is what I seek. In a society of freedom, corporate power is greatly diminished, as they are totally accountable to the consumer and the marketplace. In your ideal system, there's just one corporation: the government.

You want me to provide a source? Here it is:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1G-V9ynDFos-DgYybvpU9nUYWEqHSyG8xfJKBpoJ0Pxw/viewanalytics

I agree, it is irrelevant to the debate, it's just fun to point out how juvenile most of you are. You scream about ''ANARCHY'' and ''LIBERTY'' without knowing what either of those concepts are...

Nice, a Reddit poll of 688 people out of a movement of many thousand adherents. My God, that's definite proof of the white cis heteronormative capitalist conspiracy!!!!1

What's even funnier is that you didn't even read the poll you linked correctly. 18% of respondents identified as 18 or younger, with a majority of 69% claiming to be between the ages of 19 and 30. Just 42% of respondents identified as unemployed students. The poll makes no mention of race. Your sorry excuse for an "argument" is full of lies.

This is due to the fact that the majority of you are white, privileged, rich, american kids...

Well, I'm a working class mixed-race Australian and a philosophical anarchist. But even so, you don't need to have any particular physical or personality trait to be right. Stop being such a blatant racist.

Just because ''your one example works'' doesn't mean capitalism works.

Of course it's not ultimate proof. The source I linked was hardly convincing; it just stated the obvious, which is that markets lift people out of poverty. I have a habit of collecting empirical studies of an economic nature, and I could link you to multiple studies confirming the virtues of free markets.

-Most literature reviews of the subject find that increased economic freedom - lowering levels of taxation, government spending, regulations, and other intrusions - and market liberalisation stimulate higher rates of growth.

-The World Bank’s International Trade Department found in a review of over 100 countries over 30 years that the more economically free a country was, the faster its economy grew. (http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5660)

-The Fraser Institute, which publishes an annual world index of economic freedom accounting for factors such as market openness, the rule of law, limited government and regulatory efficiency, has repeatedly found that countries which score higher on the economic freedom indexes have higher living standards, higher average incomes, less corruption, less political violence, and faster economic growth than countries which score lower on the index. For example, the quartile of nations with the freest markets 1990-2010 experienced an average annual economic growth rate of 3.56%, while the least free quartile averaged 1.58% growth. (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/measuring-government-in-the-21st-century.pdf)

-Similar literature reviews find that taxation and government spending, which generally harm economic freedom, are damaging to economic growth. (Iacono. C, Palumbo. B (2014) In Defense of Classical Liberalism: An Economic Analysis)

-One study that is particularly interesting is one by leading Keynesian economists David and Christina Romer, the latter of which was one of the architects of US President Obama’s economic stimulus plan and pushed for $1.8 trillion in government funds to be spent on reviving the economy. Regarding the effect of taxes on economic growth, they found that “a tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers GDP by about 3 percent.” (Romer. C, D (2007) The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks http://www.nber.org/papers/w13264)

Here's a though: you are aware that in the society you propose, that employer of yours could, theoretically pay you 1 dollar per year and have no sanctions placed on him...He DOES exploit you. Your labour has no worth, only the commodities you produce for him.

Here's a thought*, you mean.

No, he doesn't. "Exploitation" in the socialist sense is just a silly, arbitrary value applied by third parties to other groups. 1 dollar per year is a lot of money to some people who are poorer than you and I. In the Third World, people have had to get by on much less than that. Third World workers line up for sweatshop jobs, for example, by the thousand, because they pay so much better than back-breaking agricultural work. At the end of the day, anything that participating parties voluntarily agree to is morally virtuous, and between the parties to the agreement. Why is it your business that a kid takes a dime to mow somebody's lawn? Again: no agreement is made in the market unless it is mutually beneficial.

But in, for example, a Western nation that became anarcho-capitalist, a dollar a year for any conventional form of work would be a rarity, as supply and demand would mean that few workers would accept a wage that low. (Unless 1 dollar would be, currency-wise, worth more than it is now.)

False, there are plenty of fascists operating in there, just take a look at your RMB.

"Look at your RMB" is not proof of anything. It's about as useful as "go read a book". As far as I know, the only fascist who resides here was a chap named Greater Fascism, who no longer lives here. Please direct me to any fascists you suspect living here. We respect differing political opinions, including the most ignorant ones, so I won't do anything if I find any right-wing socialists here. But it'd be interested to know who they are.

Nazi Germany, Fascist Paraguay, Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain were not socialist by any means. They implemented corporatism and state capitalism...literally the opposite of collectivist socialism.

Corporatism is a form of statism and collectivism. It is de facto state socialism in practice - control by coercion rather than expropriation, as [nation=short]Liberosia[/nation] would put it. The fascist ideology has a largely unclear economic policy, but fascism by definition necessarily means that it advocates some form of over-reaching state control, either in the form of corporatism or socialism. Again, this has varied from regime to regime. Fascist Italy directly nationalised 3/4ths of its economy, and Nazi Germany de facto nationalised it via corporatism. Regardless, these ideologies are intellectually and historically far more in line with socialists than they are with liberals, whom they despise.

Yes, liberty is over-valued. It was liberty that set Hitler in power, after all (Majority in the reichstag)

No it freaking wasn't. No form of statism is liberty. Especially not democracy, which in theory and practice is majority rule. Majority rule brought Hitler to power, not voluntaryism and self-ownership.

That's called negative freedom, you idiot. Freedom from outside forces. However, the market still dictates how they should act, according to what principle...basically, the worst form of exploitation...

I already answered this. Markets wield a very strong influence over people's lives, but this is a natural form of control that cannot be avoided, but usually leads to the most desirable social outcomes. But do explain how majority rule and state dictatorship are "superior" forms of control?

This is absolute bullhonkey...You didn't even refute what I said...Your argument doesn't stand up. I have to regurgitate my previous arguments...

I refuted just about everything you said, actually. But tell me if I missed a spot so I can blow it to pieces too. :)

False, you believe in an unregulated economy. An unregulated economy means NO REGULATION...allowing for whatever activity the bourgeois see fit.

Oh boy, the "regulations protect us!!!" fallacy! It must be that time of the day. Educate yourself: http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies/RegulationProtectsUs

I believe in an economy unregulated by government. The forces of the market are the fairest, most just regulatory body, purely for the reason that companies cannot do anything that consumers don't like. Government regulation, in action, is just an intricate network of corporate subsidies.

You are an IDIOT! I have to quote Capital, chapter one for this:''Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.''

This is just a longer restatement of what you originally claimed. None of this changes the fact that a freaking spoon digging a hole is not worth more than drill digging one!

Nope, not ad hominem. You don't even know how that f*cking works. Ad hominem means accusing your argumentation of being weak simply on the basis of previous statements that may have been moronic.

Calm down buddy! Attacking a person's character to undermine their argument is an ad hominem. Here's a handy link to the definition: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem These are ad hominems:

"it's just fun to point out how juvenile most of you are"

That's called confirmation bias, idiot

the majority of you are white, privileged, rich, american kids...

That's called negative freedom, you idiot.

You are an IDIOT!

Copy and pasting someone else's work, then answering a refutation with a peppering of personal insults. You're like school in July - no class. Honestly, how old are you? Thirteen? I don't mind debating a thirteen-year old. All of us were young at some point, after all. Just let me know if you are if I need to go a little easier on you. :)

This guy, people who believe in capitalism are white, privileged rich american kids *Looks up to sky feeling pride that I am a white rich privileged American*

Pevvania wrote:-snip-

Yup, that's a par.

"markets lift people out of poverty."-I'm sure that a third world sweatshop worker would disagree with this. The free market of the west is filled with companies who have their factories in countries where the industry isn't regulated fairly and the workers pay for it.

"1 dollar per year is a lot of money to some people who are poorer than you and I. In the Third World, people have had to get by on much less than that. Third World workers line up for sweatshop jobs, for example, by the thousand, because they pay so much better than back-breaking agricultural work."-Do you know why the back-breaking agricultural work pays so poorly? It's cause the western companies pay so little for the produce.

"-The Fraser Institute, which publishes an annual world index of economic freedom accounting for factors such as market openness, the rule of law, limited government and regulatory efficiency, has repeatedly found that countries which score higher on the economic freedom indexes have higher living standards, higher average incomes, less corruption, less political violence, and faster economic growth than countries which score lower on the index."-As said before, this is because all of the western nations have their industrial work done in third world countries where industry is deregulated, resulting in sweatshops. That is why the indexes there are so low-because they're being exploited by the western companies. And no, exploitation is really a very clear concept-it's taking advantage of someone else's disadvantage in order to advance your own position. The wealth gap grows.

"But in, for example, a Western nation that became anarcho-capitalist, a dollar a year for any conventional form of work would be a rarity, as supply and demand would mean that few workers would accept a wage that low. (Unless 1 dollar would be, currency-wise, worth more than it is now.)"-Ah, I see, so the poor, unarmed workers would somehow defeat the rich companies who could afford guys with machine guns to ensure the worker's cooperation? The issue is that you people don't realise that the workers are dependent on the company-it provides their livelihood. Without it, they starve.

"Corporatism is a form of statism and collectivism. It is de facto state socialism in practice - control by coercion rather than expropriation, as Liberosia would put it. The fascist ideology has a largely unclear economic policy, but fascism by definition necessarily means that it advocates some form of over-reaching state control"-Socialism does not necessarily demand state control. It just means that the means of production/produce of said production are owned by the workers.

"I believe in an economy unregulated by government. The forces of the market are the fairest, most just regulatory body, purely for the reason that companies cannot do anything that consumers don't like. Government regulation, in action, is just an intricate network of corporate subsidies."-This is bull. Most consumers don't give a damn whether a product was produced in a way that was fair to the third world workers living in poverty who actually made it. If they did, half of the highstreet brands would not exist because people wouldn't buy them.

^ Well, I mean you tried man. You did that. But isn't past your bedtime?

*-Socialism does not necessarily demand state control of the economy.

Humpheria wrote:^ Well, I mean you tried man. You did that. But isn't past your bedtime?

Debating. Certainly not my strong point. But your criticism would be appreciated in a more specific form.

State Socialism demands Government Control

Libertarian Socialism doe not so much demand it.

State Socialism and State Capitalism ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

Oh, I see the problem with my point now. Having reread what he wrote.

Custadian Puppet wrote:Debating. Certainly not my strong point. But your criticism would be appreciated in a more specific form.

I can only assume you're a young one. I participated in debate and currently coach teenagers on how to do so effectively. They generally tend to get a bit heated and use common tricks such as rhetorical questions, ad hominems (which mean attacking your opponent, not the argument; as opposed to "Ad hominem means accusing your argumentation of being weak simply on the basis of previous statements that may have been moronic", and a tendency to get angry and display what a call a 'cornered rat' defense where you feel the need to attack because you're cornered.

Humpheria wrote:I can only assume you're a young one. I participated in debate and currently coach teenagers on how to do so effectively. They generally tend to get a bit heated and use common tricks such as rhetorical questions, ad hominems (which mean attacking your opponent, not the argument; as opposed to "Ad hominem means accusing your argumentation of being weak simply on the basis of previous statements that may have been moronic", and a tendency to get angry and display what a call a 'cornered rat' defense where you feel the need to attack because you're cornered.

Don't think I ever personally attacked you. I am a teenager, though.

Custadian Puppet wrote:Don't think I ever personally attacked you. I am a teenager, though.

Not me, my friend over there. I assume that you are Sornia, but if not I apologize.

Humpheria wrote:Not me, my friend over there. I assume that you are Sornia, but if not I apologize.

I'm not Sornia. I'm Custadia.

The State Of Deseret wrote:State Socialism demands Government Control

Not if Self-management is used, though usually it is centrally-planned.

Sibirsky wrote:Happy New Year!

Happy New Year to you and all of LF, as well.

Sibirsky wrote:Happy New Year!

Happy New Years Eve!

Congrats Mien, Muh, and Pev for being some of the least conservative in the region.

TTA: *claims to be a "State Socialist"*

TTA: *second-most conservative in the region*

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Congrats Mien, Muh, and Pev for being some of the least conservative in the region.

Thank you. I tried very hard.

As 2014, the year of the RLP, ends I look back at all that we have accomplished. From creating an elected Board, which we did not have before. That's right, it used to be appointed by an unelected official.

To promoting individual freedoms of every Libertatem Citizen. Even creating Citizenship.

The RLP has been the driving force in promoting military strength and diplomatic compassion. We have been at the front line of every domestic and foreign conflict that Libertatem has been involved in, fighting not for a candidate or the party, but for Liebrtatem.

Even if you disagree an issue or two, know that the RLP will continue to fight for you. We are the party of reason. If you have an idea, let one of us know, our stances are not set in stone, we are stubborn for the sake of stubbornness, we are strong in our resolve, for the good of the region.

The RLP has been, and always will be, the party of the people. It has been a great year, Libertatem, let's do it again.

Humpheria wrote:Liebrtatem

Libertatem*, obviously

So, Is sagging a constitutional right?

http://www.nationstates.net/region=antista#pollid_18902

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:So, Is sagging a constitutional right?

http://www.nationstates.net/region=antista#pollid_18902

Why is there no "I don't care, but it's really f***ing stupid" option?

To answer the question, though, yes.

Technically.

I guess.

Miencraft wrote:Why is there no "I don't care, but it's really f***ing stupid" option?

I did'nt think of that option.

Very wise words, Mr. Attorney-General. Not to sound patronising, but you have come very far this year. You are far wiser and more cautious in your judgement than you were at the beginning of the year. In fact, I'd say that you're more presidential material now than when you were elected.

Humpheria wrote:That's right, it used to be appointed by an unelected official.

Remember during the 2013 Constitutional Crisis when you thought I'd fire you? Good times.

And despite his irritating incompetence and try-hard political opportunism, I do miss ISA. He was entertaining in the way TTA is.

Pevvania wrote:Very wise words, Mr. Attorney-General. Not to sound patronising, but you have come very far this year. You are far wiser and more cautious in your judgement than you were at the beginning of the year. In fact, I'd say that you're more presidential material now than when you were elected.

Remember during the 2013 Constitutional Crisis when you thought I'd fire you? Good times.

And despite his irritating incompetence and try-hard political opportunism, I do miss ISA. He was entertaining in the way TTA is.

Pev, are you able to run for president in the future?

Alderney And Liberty City wrote:Pev, are you able to run for president in the future?

Term limits don't exist here, so yeah. He could.

Alderney And Liberty City wrote:Pev, are you able to run for president in the future?

Well, I was President for almost a year until September! ^_^

Proud Fifth President of Libertatem here.

Happy New Year, Let's go get Bloody Hammered!

Miencraft wrote:Term limits don't exist here, so yeah. He could.

He should run again next year. His term was one of the most stable in Libertatem history.

Alderney And Liberty City wrote:He should run again next year. His term was one of the most stable in Libertatem history.

Next elections are actually in April.

They're every four months.

But I've already got some secret plans that you know about now, so I don't think he'll interfere.

Alderney And Liberty City wrote:He should run again next year. His term was one of the most stable in Libertatem history.

Why thank you. I'd only ever run again if the region fell into crisis, or the leadership was staffed with corrupt or incompetent people. I don't foresee this happening.

And who are you, again?

Pevvania wrote:Very wise words, Mr. Attorney-General. Not to sound patronising, but you have come very far this year. You are far wiser and more cautious in your judgement than you were at the beginning of the year. In fact, I'd say that you're more presidential material now than when you were elected.

Remember during the 2013 Constitutional Crisis when you thought I'd fire you? Good times.

And despite his irritating incompetence and try-hard political opportunism, I do miss ISA. He was entertaining in the way TTA is.

I was absolutely sure that you would fire me.

Pevvania wrote:Why thank you. I'd only ever run again if the region fell into crisis, or the leadership was staffed with corrupt or incompetent people. I don't foresee this happening.

And who are you, again?

You know

If you get bored:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y8MLBCYOIo

Humpheria wrote:I was absolutely sure that you would fire me.

I tried to make it clear that I wasn't hosting a political chopping block. I wanted a competent Board and a competent and loyal administration. ISA was neither competent nor loyal. He constantly banged on about democracy yet opposed my first wave of constitutional amendments for reasons that evade me to this day. And then he co-introduced a new "constitution" so poorly written and patently ridiculous that left me no choice but to throw him out in favour of someone more competent. You did not follow my agenda to a T, but you were active and competent, so I did not consider sacking you.

Pevvania wrote:I tried to make it clear that I wasn't hosting a political chopping block. I wanted a competent Board and a competent and loyal administration. ISA was neither competent nor loyal. He constantly banged on about democracy yet opposed my first wave of constitutional amendments for reasons that evade me to this day. And then he co-introduced a new "constitution" so poorly written and patently ridiculous that left me no choice but to throw him out in favour of someone more competent. You did not follow my agenda to a T, but you were active and competent, so I did not consider sacking you.

And where would you be if you had sacked me? Probably passed out with some Nicaraguan hooker Snabagag's office.

Humpheria wrote:And where would you be if you had sacked me? Probably passed out with some Nicaraguan hooker Snabagag's office.

in Snabagag's office*

How does 2015 feel, Pev?

Pevvania wrote:Very wise words, Mr. Attorney-General. Not to sound patronising, but you have come very far this year. You are far wiser and more cautious in your judgement than you were at the beginning of the year. In fact, I'd say that you're more presidential material now than when you were elected.

Remember during the 2013 Constitutional Crisis when you thought I'd fire you? Good times.

And despite his irritating incompetence and try-hard political opportunism, I do miss ISA. He was entertaining in the way TTA is.

...Don't like that comparison.

The State Of Deseret wrote:...Don't like that comparison.

You didn't even know the guy!

Alderney And Liberty City wrote:9:22 here

Just lounging around playing Smash 4, less than 3 hours to go.

Good times.

Post self-deleted by Alderney And Liberty City.

Miencraft wrote:Just lounging around playing Smash 4, less than 3 hours to go.

Good times.

Snowing here in Brant Lake, New York. Just watching The Interview with my family.

Alderney And Liberty City wrote:Snowing here in Brant Lake, New York. Just watching The Interview with my family.

Thats in the Adirondacks. We have relatives in Ticonderoga, so I've seen Brant.

All new electees (CI, Northern Prussia, Minerva, Funky, and Mien), please make sure that you are on tomorrow at 1PM EST. This will be inauguration time. As Attorney General, I will be administering the Oaths. If you cannot be on, please let me know so that we can make other arrangements. I need to know because we have to get through one oath before we get to another.

The Oaths will go in this order:

President - Conservative Idealism

Vice President - Northern Prussia

Internal Affairs - Miencraft

Foreign Affairs - Funkytopia

Military Affairs - Minerva

mpheria;9234159]You didn't even know the guy![/quote]

It's the way Pev descr[quote=humpheria;9234159]You didn't even know the guy![/quote]

[quote=humpheria;9234159]You didn't even know the guy![/quote]

It's the way Pev described him.

mpheria;9234159]You didn't even know the guy![/quote]

It's the way Pev descr[quote=humpheria;9234159]You didn't even know the guy![/quote]

[quote=humpheria;9234159]You didn't even know the guy![/quote]

It's the way Pev described him.

Remember guys, you do not hold the office until you take the Oath, so, yeah. Be on. RMB silence will begin at 1PM tomorrow as we make a new President.

Ankha wrote:Thats in the Adirondacks. We have relatives in Ticonderoga, so I've seen Brant.

Nice lake.

Humpheria wrote:Remember guys, you do not hold the office until you take the Oath, so, yeah. Be on. RMB silence will begin at 1PM tomorrow as we make a new President.

I wish there was a way to enforce that. Commies are going to wreck havoc.

Post self-deleted by Ankha.

What were you going to say?

Alderney And Liberty City wrote:Nice lake.

I wish there was a way to enforce that. Commies are going to wreck havoc.

Never done it before and if they do, they'll be suppressed until after the inauguration and reported for spam.

Happy 2015, East-Coasters.

Miencraft wrote:Happy 2015, East-Coasters.

yay

Half an hour of 2014 left for me!

Arlenton wrote:Half an hour of 2014 left for me!

That is so last year. Pssh.

Miencraft wrote:Happy 2015, East-Coasters.

You have almost exactly 12 hours left in office.

WTF

https://www.nationstates.net/region=libertarian_porno_club

Dammit, Gabriel Possenti.

Anyways, farewell address will be out soon.

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