Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Same here.
Good read.
Thanks for the share.
If we extrapolate from the posts made so far, by the end of 2014 all human communication will be in the form of puns.
And that would be awesome.
I missed the PUNch line.
That would be puntastic.
Oh no, not these jokesÂ
Punomenal.
This game makes no sense. I legalize abortion, and then that somehow means that families can only have one child.
Nice one, Max.
Then don't legalize abortion, silly.
Shh...Read it closer. It probably said Birth Control.
I dunno, pretty sure it was that generic "Oh hey we want abortion to be legal because yeah"
I picked the option where it's like "oh sure go ahead do whatever the hell you want"
Somehow, it's illegal to have relations once you already have a child.
I dunno.
Wow.. Lol.
Of course it's very difficult being a libertarian when it comes to issues.. I have to dismiss most because don't agree with any of the options.
I'm back from North America. Amazing trip there.
I feel like I've somewhat neglected important responsibilities in taking that leave of absence. It is unfortunate that the scheduled presidential election could not go forth, but I'm not even sure that anyone was considering running.
The New Year begins with the new Board beginning their term of office. Congratulations to all who won Seats, I look forward to serving with you.
I have an agenda for the next month or so: a second round of House reforms, a citizenship bill and an overhaul of the forums, perhaps even a replacement.
Here's to another year of prosperity for the region, and for the cause of liberty.
ISA... is no more :(
I'm gonna go debate with Fascists.
Party factbook is updated.
I somehow managed to get into an argument on how a 3200x900 resolution is possible.
Silly people.
What a shame.. Maybe hes just out for the holidays?
I found out that my uncle, who went to Harvard, was given a lecture or two by Ben Bernanke. I asked my uncle what he thought of him, and he said, "He's completely full of himself."
Join the Anti-Corporatist Party today, sponsored by the Department of Internal Affairs. Nations here must be free to run themselves without the fear of statism corrupting the regional government. Just say no to oppressive ideologies!
To paraphrase cigarette commercials,
"Friends don't let friends be oppressed."
I have returned.
Isn't this more than a bit self-defeating?
What really confuses/irritates me is how if I lower military spending through an issue it takes significant points away from my economic rating.
Post self-deleted by Pevvania.
Military Keynesianism FTW
This is why we can't have nice things
I fixed it.
It contains a healthy dose of irony for humor's sake, but it is unjustified in that the Department of Internal Affairs is neither a corporation nor oppressive. At least, for the time being.
To be honest, it's been clear for a while that Max Barry knows very little about economics. The vast majority of issues, especially the first 50, are simplistic and poorly conceived, relying on outrageous economic assumptions. (Mechanisation increases both employment and GDP, for God's sakes. -_-) Jennifer Government was ok as a story, but it was a poorly-written political book. It gave no reasoning whatsoever as to why the abolition of taxation would result in America annexing half the world and small business going extinct. He bases his thinking on arguments based purely on face value and Keynesian fallacies that were debunked years ago.
That guy really needs to read up on economics before writing on subjects he knows nothing about.
Would anybody be interested in a regional Olympics RP?
That's a great idea! I tried to organise one in my old region, but it didn't take off. If you can plan it, by all means go ahead.
sure....
Olymphkn Dahn Libertatem, the Miencraftic shall call this event.
Is there an event that involves building roads...?
If there was, I think everyone else would just forfeit anyways.
While we're on the topic, I need some roads built over this way...
Well don't ask me.. ask private industry :P
Oh, I was going to, I was just admiring the poor condition of the roads in some parts of Ravenshire.
Jeez, who's the guy in charge of this stuff? He should be... uh, I don't know, turned into a road, or something.
You tricky libertarians and your rigged events. Obviously the most statist nations would win this one
We can host it.
Post self-deleted by Blahbania.
Post self-deleted by Blahbania.
Hello all. I would like to present to you a puppet storage region, specifically for storing the puppets of members of Libertatem, IRU, and REATO members.
This region is Blahbania.
If you want to send a puppet, please TG me, and I will give you the password.
Lol!
I'll bet you a whole straw penny my private industry competitors do it better!
Guys, check out this page titled 'Critiques of Libertarianism': http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#intent
It's essentially making 34 points that suggest we are all indebted to the state and that rights like private property are in fact privileges bequeathed to us from the government. Most of it's pretty ridiculous, and many of the 'arguments' it makes downright misrepresents libertarian points of view.
I will counter each point here a bit later.
Agh, cancer upon my eyes.
Post self-deleted by Miencraft.
Doesn't help that it looks like a big mess of text.
If word is not heard from me late tonight, assume that the Department of Internal Affairs is closed for the next few days.
Has the Board elected a Chairman?
I'm back from a debate with Fascists.
How'd it go?
It went well. Until they started calling the holocaust the "holohoax." They recruited outside help to debate me, which I thought was funny since it was already me against 53 Fascists and National Socialists. It was very civilized, and they welcomed me nicely.
I see I am now apart of The House. I will not act as a representative, pitching in my own thoughts. Instead a delegate.
I quite liked the article :3
Although it did seem like it was misrepresenting at least some of what I've heard you Libertarians hawk on about, I'll agree :P Nevertheless, the contractual obligations section seemed to be logically sound, IMO.
I'll be interested to hear your counter points :)
I have read this Hundreds of times. I can agree on half of those issues that libertarians talk about; however then I can side With libertarians over half of those too.
Workin on it.
Since when did we decide to elect a chairman? I haven't been keeping up with much the past few days?
A chairman is elected every term. Please send the telegram if you haven't.
I don't mean to be rude but are you a puppet because your Anarchy with a Communist Flag two things I disagree with and this Region opposes... I'll agree with you on hating Facists though
This new poll system may be useful... if we could figure out how to mess with it just so, we could probably use it in some elections sometime.
I think I may go send a puppet out to found a new region and mess with this.
Zion most of us disagree with communism.. some of us against anarchy.. but please read.
"We're a historically libertarian, anti-communist region, but we nevertheless accept anyone of all ideologies."
I believe in Libertarian Communism. That is why my flag bears the hammer and sickle.
Communism and libertarianism are mutually exclusive.
What?
Post self-deleted by Miencraft.
mutually exclusive (adj): of or pertaining to a situation involving two or more events, possibilities, etc., in which the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other
Which is to say, Libertarian Communism is an oxymoron.
Removed last post because it had an N instead of ADJ. Mutual exclusivity, Miencraft. Mutual exclusivity is the noun form.
Did I ever mention that the defeat of Repeal Child Firearm Safety Act was silly.
I mean, come on, how are you going to demonstrate knowledge of using a weapon if you can't own one?
seconded
Thank you. I had never heard that until now.
So, you guys are saying my beliefs do not exist? And that the books written about libertarian communism and the many numbers of libertarian communist philosophers and advocates do not exist? That is pure insanity. Communism has no state, currency, or social classes. It advocates for democracy and is the medium between individualism and collectivism, it is both actually. It fits perfectly with libertarianism, which I might add, the first people to use the word 'libertarian' were the leftists, with prodhoun.
The Board has elected myself Chairman.
Communism and libertarianism are an unlikely combination, but not one outside the realm of possibility.
State socialism and objectivist libertarianism, on the other hand, are about as mutually exclusive as you can get.
How is objectivist libertarianism an oxymoron?
The Anarcho-Capitalist Party no longer reflects my opinions about Libertatem. I am creating a new party, the F. A. Hayek Party for those who believe in Hayek's beliefs.
Is the LP Not good enough for you people!
Seriously, people, LP, please. No joke.
False. Communism is absolute Collectivism. The Medium between Collectivism and Individualism is Cohesivism.
You could say that Communism and Libertarianism on a scale of both Left & Right and Up & Down, where Up is more control of government and Down is less control of government, are similar if they are both enacted on the lower part of the scale. However, Communism has always and will always start with the desire for universal equality and the overthrow of government only to install an authoritarian government in a few years after the original revolution.
Libertarianism is just like Ayn Rand's Objectivism where you do whatever you want for your own selfish reasons and where the government is most limited not completely nonexistent (that would be anarchy).
Though Libertarianism and Communism are opposed to one another they are both bad for these reasons:
1) Communism in its Utopian non class, non governmental, total equality form is impossible to establish because of Free Will and human desire to become exceptional. 2) Because of free will and human desire, Communism becomes forced to suppress these things in its society which creates an all powerful omnipresent government.
3) Libertarianism doesn't work because it completely disregards morality and gives the implication that all things are fine and that one should do thinks for their "Own self interest, the virtue of selfishness" (Ayn Rand). It is for similar reasons why Anarchy does not work... besides the fact that you need laws otherwize a complete democracy of equality would be mob rule and the majority would have the absolute power to commit genocide and suppress the minority.
Therefore, the BEST solution to all these things is the Economic Theory of Incentivism and the Social Practice of Cohesivism. These two things are between Socialism & Capitalism and Collectivism & Individualism.
"It is for similar reasons why Anarchy does not work... besides the fact that you need laws otherwize a complete democracy of equality would be mob rule and the majority would have the absolute power to commit genocide and suppress the minority."
Please, please, please, explain how in a stateless society 1) common law disappears 2) everyone voluntarily participates in direct democracy 3) how the state can be a source of "morality" 4) If neither of these systems work, why is it magically perfect when they are brought together in some centrist pipe dream?
1. It's humans. Most Humans have no Morales.
2. They don't. Anarchy causes Chaos.
3. The State puts laws into effect. That's all the morality they give though.
4. Centrist System good. But if your coming out of Anarchy you need something stronger.
1. That's an assumption, where are your facts?
2. Anarchy causes Chaos.. Not this arguement again statist gonna state. Allow me to quote http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html
Anarchism is not chaos; Anarchism is not rejection of organization. This is another popular misconception, repeated ad nauseam by the mass media and by anarchism's political foes, especially marxists (who sometimes know better). Even a brief look at the works of anarchism's leading theoreticians and writers confirms that this belief is in error. Over and over in the writings of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker, Ward, Bookchin, et al., one finds not a rejection of organization, but rather a preoccupation with it—a preoccupation with how society should be organized in accord with the anarchist principles of individual freedom and social justice. For a century and a half now, anarchists have been arguing that coercive, hierarchical organization (as embodied in government and corporations) is not equivalent to organization per se (which they regard as necessary), and that coercive organization should be replaced by decentralized, nonhierarchical organization based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. This is hardly a rejection of organization.
3. What exactly makes a government any better at creating laws and enforcing them, than say, a group of volunteers?
1) The Tradtion of Anglo Common Law has little to do with “morals” (which is a highly subjective word that can mean most anything).
2) I’m not sure if you’ve been keeping up with the current events of the last millennia, but the state has been doing a pretty good job ensuring chaos on its own. Voluntary Association’s “Chaos” is completely conjectural with little factual basis, while the state’s is well documented and continual. The few stateless societies in modern history have functioned peaceably and relatively stable (ie Icelandhttp://mises.org/daily/1121)
3) “Laws,” in the sense of state given mandates enforced at the end of a gun, can amount to moral rulings, that doesn’t make it right. Say I lived in Mexico and suddenly a Cannibalistic majority appeared. They can now use their sheer numbers to control the state and enforce their “morality” which includes eating me and my family. If you think that’s far-fetched look no further than the American Drug war, it’s a great example of the state legislating the “morals” of the majority. Legislating morality is a dangerous thing.
4) This is a common misconception factually and based entirely on opinion and tradition. When black and white are mixed grey appears. Some would call this a win-win situation, this however, is not the case. Before the mix the white was spotless and impeachable, but after the mix it absorbed the undesirable qualities of the black, which had nothing to lose. In addition, “centrist” systems can mean darn near anything depending of the views of any number of factions in a society.
For the highlighted section; and how do you think you are supposed to organize these volunteers? Anarchists need to face the fact that humanity needs a strong hierarchical structure to work efficiently. If you want to go from an evolutionary biology standpoint, it's because we're social creatures that tend to fall into extended family/medium sized groups with an intrinsic hierarchy based on social status, that depending on culture is achieved by possessing different attributes.
From birth we are part of hierarchical groups, starting with our parents - figures of authority, rule givers and rule enforcers, as well as our protectors and providers. This hierarchy continues throughout our lives in one form or another and is present in every culture I can think of, to a greater or lesser degree.
If a non-hierarchical system were truly more effective than a hierarchical one, why has no successful military been based off of a "decentralized, nonhierarchical organization based on voluntary cooperation"? Or for that matter, no successful business, charity or revolution?
As to your point 3; what's to keep the volunteers from deciding to say 'screw this, we're going to start oppressing everybody'? Democracies have multiple 'failsafes' and attempts to divide power to prevent this. A group of volunteers with guns and a declaration to 'bring law to this nation' do not. In fact, they don't even have an incentive to try. The leading political party in a democracy has the incentive to try and please voters so as to get another term in office.
Finally, the government has one key advantage over groups of volunteers; mono
poly on power. In an anarchist society, there may indeed be groups of volunteers dedicated to making free and fair rules that are agreed on by all. Equally though, there is absolutely no reason that a rival group of volunteers shouldn't spring up, with the sole intention to pillage from; steal from; destroy the property of; and exploit anybody that does not adhere to their principles. Seeing as neither has a monopoly on power (either in the law making or law enforcing areas), the result is only two rival factions - in a perfectly anarchist system neither of which have a leader - that cannot agree on which laws to enforce or how to enforce them. Therein lies a problem. One that is hard to solve without a mediator or the use of force by one or both sides.
Interesting link in point 2. However, how was that society ever truly anarchist? It still had a strong hierarchical structure and a form of government! Given, the government was more localized and a hell of a lot less centralized, but there was still a leader figure. Anarchism requires no leader and no hierarchy. Unless, that is, Anarchists have decided to completely redefine anarchism to some compromise and I haven't been informed.
Also on that point 2, the link mentioned that there were battles and feuds. However, it instantly points to the American Civil war (a battle simply on a much bigger scale) as a sign of American Democracy's 'failure'. If the American Civil War is proof of democracy's failings, then surely the battles that occurred on occasion in medieval iceland are too. The fact that they were on a much smaller scale is indicative of only one thing; that the 'government unit' was much smaller - consisting of only one chieftain vs another.
3. Agreed on legislating 'morality'. Especially in countries were morality is linked intrinsically to antiquated religious values. However, what's to stop a cannabalistic majority in an anarchist situation from eating everybody who disagreed with them?
That is an incredibly dangerous comparison. There are different levels of Authority present in human culture, the Parent-Child relationship is something completely different that that of the State-Subject relationship. The parents provide 100% of the needs of the child because the child is unable to do so itself. Most, if not all, the functions of the state can be provided by the private sector on a voluntary bases.
Of course no successful military has ever been based in a decentralized manner. Militaries are the embodiment of the state in a literal sense. The largest most effective group of thugs decides the fate of the rest. An example of an effective, but not truly successful due to foreign intervention, decentralized army is that of the republicans during the Spanish civil war. They were able to do this because of a common belief and an educated populace.
'screw this, we're going to start oppressing everybody' That sums the state pretty well. In an ideal setting in which the governing apparatus of a society was phased out over a generation or more, the population of the society would become well educated on their rights the how the realization of the advantages of Voluntary Association.
monopoly on power: This is the main issue of the state, not the saving value. A monopolization of power is one of the greatest long term threats to the stability of a society. Under such a system the population becomes complacent and ignorant of the possibilities of different systems. A great example being the American citizenry. The vast majority of Americans sit ideally by while the Federal Reserve destroys the worldÂ’s Economy and their nation destabilizes entire regions of the world, these people either donÂ’t understand or donÂ’t care about these actions because they believe their system is ideal and nothing could be better.
"David Friedman states, "Â…seats in the law-making body were quite literally for sale." These men who were law-makers did not have power just because they held the title godord. They were powerless "unless he could convince some free-farmers to follow him." [2] This kept tyranny and injustice in check."
This is not a state in the normal sense of the word, or any for that matter. This is an example of voluntary association by means of mutual beneficial actions.
"Even in times of war, it was understood that every man that was killed had to be paid for. [5] This kept feuds short, there were never any real wars, and the violence could be classified as either a family feud or a battle. Battles were short and lasted a couple of days at most. [6] Both parties always had the incentive to compromise and make amends because sustained violence is costly in this type of institutional framework."
I'm not going to sit here and lie, violence is an unavoidable part of human nature, no matter how irrational it might be. That being said, as this example documents, in the absence of a true state conflicts are kept on a much smaller scale and can be resolved outside state managed negations or complete desolation of the opposing side.
The Icelandic society had its share of flaws, all societies do, but it serves as an example to how things [B]COULD[/B] be better, not an exact outline on how things [B]SHOULD[/B] be universally.
"3. Agreed on legislating 'morality'. Especially in countries were morality is linked intrinsically to antiquated religious values. However, what's to stop a cannabalistic majority in an anarchist situation from eating everybody who disagreed with them?"
The lack of a monopolization of power
A lack of monopolization of power does not guarantee this. It perhaps requires a large majority (say 60/40 rather than 51/49), but if a majority of people in an anarchist environment want to (continuing with the analogy) become cannibals and eat everybody else, there's very little a minority can do other than fight a one sided battle they're destined to loose for lack of numbers.
Now, with most things IRL the minority isn't going to get eaten, so the consequences of enforcing the majority opinion are a little less grave - morally speaking. However, to ensure that everybody adheres to the same rules, the government enforces the desires of the majority (or, more often in western democracies, a compromise between the wants of the majority and minority(ies)) to avoid unnecessary violence or danger caused by an unhappy minority. This, I would argue, avoids aggression on the part of the dissatisfied minority over emotional (and of course other) issues such as legalizing abortion by de-incentivizing the dissatisfied people who want abortion to be illegal from going about and (for instance) killing abortion doctors and women who choose to have them (as the government uses its monopoly on power to ensure that the majority opinion that "it is a woman's right to abort a fetus" is protected).
Peaceful incentive - backed up by a monopoly on force - to comply to rules agreed on by the majority is, surely, a better alternative to aggressive retaliation to all rules by a dissatisfied minority, isn't it?
I struggle to see how you differentiate this significantly from some forms of modern democracy. Replace followers with voters and you have the essence of many democratic systems - the more followers you have, the more power you have. A political party with no followers has no power. Here, the principal difference is that if you are dissatisfied with your government you will have to wait to support another one, or else move country.
I am also confused as to how the author of the article is able to safely state that that it "kept tyranny and injustice in check". While it is true that it kept the farmers that supported a given chieftain safe from oppression by said chieftain, what is to stop that chieftain from attacking another chieftain and oppressing the farmers he has "conquered" under rules they never agreed to (after all, this is the state of affairs most states find themselves in)?
The fact is that the modern nation-state is a conglomeration of millions of people often from very different cultural backgrounds and varying opinions. They cannot please everybody present because the people within them did not choose to be born in them, and often are unable to move to somewhere they would be more pleased for economic reasons. It is therefore impractical if not impossible to attempt to allow them to self-govern in a "Medieval Icelandic" form without it leading to the creation of multiple, separate nation states. For this system to even be possible in the modern world it would require a worldwide destruction of the concept of a nation state, followed by a way to globally enforce whatever rules people had signed up to within a 'chieftaindom' across all the people that followed any given chief.
Like many a communist ideal, this anarchist-y one might be nice, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
You might like to read "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson if you haven't already. While only a side part to a plot, it's set in a "post downfall" America where private companies own "suburb nations" which enforce the rules they like. You have to sign up to be part of these "suburb states", but there are multiple "outlets" across the country. The American government still exists, but it has no more power over the country than any one of the other suburbs. Bit of a dystopia if you ask me, but you may see it differently X)
True, it would lead to smaller scale acts of violence, in general, but I think it would generally lead to a larger quantity of them. On iceland, among a relative mono-culture where disputes are likely to be small and mostly inter-personal, disputes were never likely to get hugely out of hand. However, when we take this up to the scale of religion and other things people fight for around the world, again I think we would quickly encounter the problem that some people would rally around 'warlike' chiefs and then attempt to oppress others. After all, what's to stop them if they're determined and motivated to wage war?
Anyway, I've been typing for a good amount of time now and really should be doing other things X) One last point; when you state "The largest most effective group of thugs decides the fate of the rest" in reference to the military, can you suggest any anarchist system where this would not happen? I cannot comprehend the logic behind anarchists that claim anarchism would lead to more peace and stability than the current world situation when it leaves people completely unregulated by a state.
So The Region poll system seems cool.
Aah, it's going to be 10 degrees tomorrow.
Well, at least it's not Minnesota with their 50-below-zero-windchill.
I agree it isn't a guarantee, but with the state in place there is the guarantee of someone (or group of someones) getting needlessly oppressed.
The most serious issue with that is the rules agreed on by the majority. To follow the cannibal theme, the rules could be to sacrifice your first born child to the community fridge. With out the state there to enforce the will of the majority there can be little need for aggressive retaliation by the dissatisfied minority. Its more or less a "live and let live" situation with out an omnipresent party to make sure its "live like this or dont live."
In a democratic-representative system those whom vote for an elected official are attempting to enforce their world views on the rest of the population. In the Icelandic system described the “subjects” voluntarily agree to the decescesions of the chieftain and if not they don’t have to. In a democratic system the losing group just has to deal with the consequences.
The entire concept of war is only viable in a state dominated society. The odds that enough people would agree on a single issue or even group of issues to the point to come together and collectively fight another group is less than one in five. "but the organized religion?! and the crusades?! and the jihad?!" Organized religion is going to organize itself regardless of states. The crusades solely happened in the scale that they did because of medieval politics, the holy land was merely a cover. Islam, or anything else for that matter, isn't dangerous until an Islamic state rises up.
Again the whole army thing would be dismissed if the state ceased to exist. Historically empires expand to farther their tax base. If an entire society realizes that their taxation is merely theft and refuses to pay then offensive military action would cease to be pertinent. I concur that an immediate dissolution of the sate would lead to a less stable and peaceful situation in general, but i maintain that a slow change over several decades any society can rid itself of the cancer of the state in a smooth transition to freedom.
I have to admit its been fun discussing with you. Thank you for raising serious concerns and not just shouting MUH ROADS, that can get old real fast.
Can some one explain what that means please
It's a new feature under regional controls. I'm not exactly sure if its a NS++ feature or not..
Apologies for the lack of activity. We need to get recruiting going again to prevent our numbers from slipping. I've just sent out a few messages, which will hopefully stimulate our population once more.
Soon I will introduce to the floor the House of Representatives Restoration and Reform Amendment. I have come to realise that the HOREF amendment is flawed in that it still expects a degree of activity burdenous to nations who often sign up to the House and then rarely come to vote.
HORRREF will reinstate the clause in the Constitution that decrees "The House shall be composed of every nation of Libertatem," but will mandate that the passage of constitutional amendments is required by two thirds of those voting on the amendment as opposed to two thirds of the House in its entirety.
I'm concerned that Article IV of the Constitution, which concerns amendments, grants too much power to the President. Since the role of founder has effectively been merged into that of President, I've effectively been granted two thirds of the power needed to pass a constitutional amendment. Unless there existed a strong majority of nations in all our legislatoral institutions that were opposed to an amendment I had introduced (conditions which do not presently exist), I can easily pass amendments as I please with the support of the Board or House alone.
I recommend that the Attorney-General look into this matter.
The Department of Internal Affairs recognizes the discrepancy between the conditions these laws were devised under and the current conditions, and is in support of HORRREF.
I am also invoking executive order to partially privatise The Liberty Gazette, which can be accessed via the NationStates++ add-on (which you can get from the Google Chrome Store, here: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nationstates%20%20/gcgdpgjockahmkhjgcfidmlahiicmagj).
In the event that militants enter the region and sabotage the papers, I will archive every issue published.
Now that it's been partially privatised, which I unfortunately cannot extend unconditionally due to the restrictions of NS++, any nation who simply asks me can add an article which I encourage you all to do to enrich our culture and stimulate activity.
I've added all the names from the Board, House and everyone else who's active. Just ask if you want your name added as an editor.
The DRP is now Active. The Platform for the DRP will be up at end of week.
Thanks, now I've got it.
It's not, it came out in the News news, the one written by Barry.
Post self-deleted by Miencraft.
Related, I should really start writing something for the Gazette.
Dunno what to do, though. Maybe something about the recent population decline.
Also related to newspapers, the New Ravenshire Chronicle (which is actually the title of the paper I get for issues) has an excerpt available to the public (it's even in English! Perssonic versions will probably come out once I get all the words figured) on my factbook.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.