Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Ive also seen Pev and Pevv....
:P
Pev I will respond to you later.
First off I have to post this Brilliant equation a Leftist just gave me when I'm talking about Fascism
According to the Lefty
Authoritarianism=/=Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism=Leftism
Fascism=/=Leftism
Totalitarianism=Fascism
Either one's OK, I guess. A famous ancestor of mine had a surname beginning with Pev. That's how I named my nation.
I thought that your last name was Peverelle...
:P
But it's not though.
Also Pev...For the website. I'm going to assume you haven't seen my search history and that was just a very lucky guess.....
*gasp* TYRANNY LIES!!!
Politics according to an anarcho-communist
Fascism = Fascism
Libertarianism = Fascism
Liberalism = Fascism
Conservatism = Fascism
Monarchism = Fascism
Voluntaryism = Fascism
Stalinism = Fascism
Nope. What gave you that idea?
What you wrote looked C/P'd, so I just pasted a part of it into Google search and I found the website. I also typed in "when has intervention worked" and it was the first relevant result x)
Anything that I disagree with = Fascism
Post self-deleted by Ankha.
..........Yeah...
And now according to them fascism is based off Roman Ideology during the Roman Empire...
Post self-deleted by Albenia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8RHxv0bxzo
I don't know whether he's very informed...or very ill-informed.
Wow....
Anyone who makes generalisations as wide as that about an entire race is stupid. The pigment of your skin or the shape of your face has no impact whatsoever on the structure of your mind.
Fair enough...also Pev...I have tried constructing an Argument against what you said...
All I can really say is in regards to this part. Government Intervention on Tariffs wasn't needed. And you know why it probably did well? Because due to tariff's American manufacturing was developed. Protectionism is needed until you've got a good production base. After that Let the Markets free.
That's what I came up with listening to that rap. Never give me two polar opposite ideologies..Cause I will find a way.
You steer the markets until the are working then set them free.
Keynesian and Austrian schools of Thought and the good from them, but not the bad.
So Chicago School?
....Chicago school.
I'm not sure. I've never really read up on that school of thought.
I've read Austrian
Keynesian
American
and Marxian
Well, the tariff was generally low in the first half of the 19th Century, averaging around 17%. So a good production base already developed with tariffs low. China has developed an enormous production base by pursuing free trade policies. Free commerce doesn't hurt 'infant industries'; it strengthens them, and encourages competition that lowers prices and makes everyone wealthier.
Chicago School is good for a more empiricist view on economics, but it's far too cynical, in my opinion. I also have serious disagreements with Chicago Schoolers on monetary policy.
Such as what?
I myself find it hilariously idiotic it says Government needs a strict controlled monetary system.
I am not an economist, but I believe most of my economical beliefs are Chicago based while I reserved some others for a more Austrian interpretation.
I'm not an economist either. But I'm hoping to get the gist of all the economic schools of thought in before school starts back. That way I can sound somewhat competent when discussing economical schools of thought.
I'm currently studying Ancient Schools of Economic thought...
Ancient economic schools?
Og is three prostitutes. Ug has a blanket. Og is cold. Ug is lonely. What should they do?
This is basically Chicago school in a nutshell, TTA:
"An economic school of thought that originated at the University of Chicago in the 1940s. The main tenets of the Chicago school are that free markets best allocate resources in an economy, and that minimal government intervention is best. The Chicago school includes monetarist beliefs about the economy, and contends that the money supply should be kept in equilibrium with the demand for money. To this end, macroeconomic variables like output and wages are viewed in aggregate for the entire economy." -Investopedia
The first, ancient primordial libertarians were from the Chicago school. Friedman and his intellectual forefathers, Ug and Og.
....Not that Ancient.
It's Ancient Egypt, Greece, China, India and Medival Islamic Economic Thoughts and Policies
Actually Libertarianism can be traced as far back as the ancient Chinese philosopherLao-Tzu and the higher-law concepts of the Greeks and the Israelites.
However it really began during the 17th Century and the 18th century with the rise of liberalism. Of course Liberalism eventually developed into Classical Liberalism and Anarco-Liberalism (Not Anarchy).
The 17th and 18th centuries were a philosophical treasure trove for libertarianism as an ideology, but indeed the origins are a fair bit further in history.
You did your homework, it seems.
I just realised - you're that guy on the NSG Forums!
Much further back.
In fact most political Ideaologies originate much farther back than when they were named.
Socialism began as a theory in Persia if I remember correctly but it didn't really kick off till The French Revolution.
Yep, the prolific poster who ranks 62nd of all time in posts. I sure am.
Well well, it's nice to see you outside of the warzone. I'm Lerodan Chinamerica, in case you didn't know already.
Have you come to drive out the communists from the fair free land of Nationstates with us?
And I am The Liberated Territories.
......
What? What?
What what?
...Minerva you aren't TLT
Yep, it's nice to meet you.
Yes I am.
Want proof? I know you from the Senate. You're in the Centre Party, right?
And yes early Socialist Philosophy can from a Persian named Mazdak
Are you really?
Yeah. What reason would I have in lying?
I've been in the senate a lot longer than here. I tried convincing my native Laissez Faireholm to start a raiding team (and even ran in their elections) when I wanted to try out raiding but meh. So I came here.
....
Well that's pretty neat.
NeoCon is also in my party. (Although I wasn't to happy with Arkolon bringing him back in since he left to create his own party, but came back when it couldn't get off the start.) I led it slide though.
They're pretty noninterventionist. They flatly rejected joining REATO when I proposed the idea to them last year.
I like this this region of Laissez Faire. They take their "Leave alone" policies to an international level.
Oh yeah...I saw his party.
I was in The Centre Party but I haven't paid much attention to the Senate.
I figured that out. Paleolibertarians and those who uphold the NAP even in this game. I mean, in real life I am pretty non-interventionist too, but I think that's taking it too far. Of course, I don't exclusively uphold the NAP as I tend to weigh it against other variables.
I feel like us libertarians are losing some of our brightest voices on the General forums. Too many are becoming moderates. Libertarian California has embraced xenophobic progressivism, and I'm almost certain that New Sea Territory has become an an-com. I think it's important for libertarians to keep up to date with the facts to avoid the appeal of nasty ideologies creeping into our minds.
Meh. I tend to snark more than debate. NSG is not to be taken seriously. I frequently parlay with Liberaxia and others who just create fallacy after fallacy.
I prefer Forum 7 and Factbook for it's more relaxed atmosphere and friendlier people.
That's sort of the same with me. I've become more anti-war in real life, but to be expected to carry over that viewpoint to NS makes no sense since there are so many fewer factors to consider here. There's no collateral damage, no cost of war, etc.
I'll try getting active on the General forum again.
I used to get on everyday and I specialized in putting down radical Religious people who were...too religious.
When it comes to regions I carry all my views OOC...
I don't get Liberaxia. His main function seems to be criticising the beliefs of everyone else without putting forth any of his own concrete views. I struggled with NSG, at first. But then I learnt to pick up the tricks that were thrown at me and throw them back.
I wouldn't fit in to Forum 7. You need to be funny to gel with others there, and my humour does not translate through text very well. Plus it would be weird talking to some guys who I get into quite heavy debates with.
Post self-deleted by Albenia.
Post self-deleted by Albenia.
Yeah, I crept more moderate just to reverse course. I may entertain some of their ideas, but point out the majority on General hold ideologies far too idealistic to compete against tax havens and human nature itself.
What do you fellows think of welfare states?
That's because Liberaxia doesn't even have any concrete views, and says so himself.
Thankfully being funny isn't a requirement to join forum 7, you just need to learn not to take things 100% seriously. You can still get into some pretty heavy debates, as I well defended not banning incan light bulbs fairly well (although they banned them anyway).
As witnessed by 18 pages of arguing about blueberry bread, forum 7 is really the only place i fit in.
An unnecessary series of poverty traps that we all have to pay for. Welfare should be abolished.
Once again, Pev hit the nail on the head.
I'm up in the air.
I value Private isurance companies more but if it is MINIMAL welfare coverage only to those with a job and not able to pay the bill for their house.
Mine is knocking off Communists. These days the Communists aren't so blatant as they've wised up to my tactics.
I'd concede to a negative income tax coupled off with some vouchers, at most. Otherwise charity and a job are the two best solutions to welfare.
Why's that? What safety nets would there be for the poor if welfare was abolished?
You'll love it here then. We bash communists regularly.
Minimal welfare with major private insurance.
Sadly
No safety nets is the point. With more money circulating because of their absence, there will be a higher presence of work.
None.
I say abolishing the sales tax is a place to start.
Setting up Minimal Welfare.
Letting companies not be forced to give employees government welfare
Letting Private Insurance companies handle business
If anyone's interested, here's my several page defense of incandescent light bulbs:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=19563262#p19563262
It's a poverty trap if not merely subsidizing but not completely paying for their lifestyle or time limited. A negative income tax to the level of $8000 per capita would work better than most welfare programs due to means testing bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is probably the reason welfare costs as much as it does.
Negative Income tax?
They learned to conceal themselves a bit better although by avoiding outright economic ideology threads or shifting to social democrats. The fact I can move them towards capitalism is good, but they're still too far left for my tastes and become harder to take out as they accept the free market as a component somewhere of a working economy. Thus there's fewer weak spots.
I disagree. Keep the sales tax in favor of a Fairtax system. Use a progressive sales tax instead.
A proposed system by Milton Friedman as a substitute for welfare.
Here's some literature on the idea
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html
Oh I remember back when I was a Liberal Socialist/ Social Democrat/Practical State Capitalist or whatever the hell i was...Ah..That night I realized all my economics were flawed.....
No.
Progressive sales tax? No.
Progressive Income tax? Yes.
Why not?
The government and treasury pay you?
No..first.
How would a Progressive Sales tax work?
I was a Stalinist who shifted to the far right economically while keeping the authoritarianism up. Then I realized the government was too cruel in the terms of brutality. Once one sees police brutality a bit too much then you don't want a police state.
A Stalinist? Wow. You went compete opposite.
Yes, but the difference here is that the bureaucracy that eats 75% of the welfare budget suddenly becomes 2% as you don't have all those people in for means testing.
Better if I show you: http://taxhistory.tax.org/Civilization/Documents/Sales/hst6649/6649-1.htm
Yep, I flipped the economic switch about eight or nine years ago and away from authoritarianism five years ago.
I have to go for a while bye y'all
Yes. You are given money, basically, if you earn under a threshold.
One of the main criticisms is that it'll deincentivize work, but this has not been found to be the case at all.
Poverty was falling rapidly in the US for decades, but unfortunately bottomed out when Johnson's Great Society programs came in. You know when it started seriously falling again? During the 90s, when Clinton and Congress finally decided to enact welfare reform and help the poor back into work. Dozens of so-called "anti-poverty programs" were eliminated. As a result, poverty was cut in half.
First of all, a welfare-less society would be much wealthier. Economic growth, which accumulates faster when government spending is lower, is where 75% of income gains to lower income brackets come from. And having any kind of job and a high school diploma mean that you're extremely unlikely to fall into poverty, and have a 70% chance at joining the middle class. Basically, having a smaller government and low spending and taxation rates is good for the poor in the long term, and much better than welfare.
For those that do fall into poverty for no fault of their own, I'm convinced that charities and mutual societies would be more than able to take care of people in a world without welfare. America expends much less on welfare as a percentage of GDP than European countries, and is the most charitable nation on Earth. Charity is much more effective and less wasteful than welfare. Government has no incentive to reduce poverty in the same way that tobacco companies don't have the incentive to launch aggressive anti-smoking campaigns, because when poverty declines the need for government declines. But when someone donates to a charity, they expect their money to achieve some positive result. Also, welfare is unconstitutional, at least at the federal level.
Will post sources tomorrow. But for now I will sleep.
Taxing consumption is much more economically friendly than taxing income. I think US GDP would increase by 3% if the FairTax was passed.
But I don't think it would be a good idea in the long term, because sales taxes are much more politically resilient than income taxes. It's why Europe has such oversized welfare states.
Hm, sounds interesting. But how is welfare unconstitutional?
Government isn't granted that power by the constitution.
*speaks with some sort of liberal-sounding voice* Sure it is! The Preamble says "promote the general welfare" and that means Obamacare is good for you
Promoting welfare is diffrent from providing welfare
True that.
It sure is. One can see it how few people have taken advantage of certain welfare programs for home improvements. Why? Because people don't know much about it. Promoting it is far worse than just having it around.
Certainly is.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.