Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
I've lived in Ohio my entire life, and I have nothing to complain Bout the scenery, weather, or people. Ohio is a geographically diverse state in addition to hosting every possible season in the northern hemisphere (which is nice because you never get bored of the weather). The options for living locations are numerous and diverse. Hosting several large cities (ie. Columbus, Cincinnati, Toledo) ohio has a large urban population as well as all the oppertunties that go with that setting. In addition the majority of the state is rural so you also have the option to live in the middle of nowheresville. Ohio's population (generally speaking) is the nicest I have had the privilege to interact with. I've spent time in numerous other states (though never permanently) and I have to say Ohioans are truly the most sincere people I have dealt with.
Politically, however, our state is a mess. It's mainly a red state, but the governor is often a swing election. Strickland (the previous gov) really messed us up. We saw record job loss and a major number of businesses leave the state. Kaschic (our current gov) rode in on a platform of reform and limited government. Since he was elected he has pushed for the acceptance of the ACA, sizably increased state welfare, and done little to nothing about the state tax code.
Our current state of affairs had lead to the budding of one of the fastest growing liberty movements in America. With YAL branches at nearly every campus and LP candidates running for nearly everything the message is really getting out there.
And that's basically Ohio
Oh God, you've got Kasich?! Daaaaayum! It's great to hear that the liberty movement is thriving there, but it's too bad that the Governor banned third parties. http://benswann.com/senate-votes-to-ban-the-libertarian-party-from-ohio-ballot/
I urge all WA members to APPROVE 'Condemn the Black Riders'. http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/start=5
Some of the worst cops too... lol
I'm in Toledo occasionally.. Traffic cams drive me mad! lol
Yup! I live a bit south of Flint.
I urge ALL WA MEMBERS to APPROVE 'Condemn The Internationale'! http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=pevvania_1386153815
That is to say if the law passes, which it might. Currently, however, the LP does have a candidate in the grubnatorial race. I doubt earl will win, but it helps send the message.
http://www.lp.org/charles-earl-running-for-ohio-governor
I heard that it passed both chambers. I think the biggest problem with the Libertarian Party is that they think they can instantly win a big office, like the Governorship or the Presidency. They need to focus on filling local positions and building grassroots support. It'd also be helpful if the mainstream media could give 'em more attention.
On another subject, could you approve my condemnation of The Internationale? It's linked in the WFE.
Only delegates can approve stuff
The Presidents' Amendment has passed into law.
Welcome, Tsardom. What can we do for you today?
I just noticed the 'war on communism thing.'
Communism does not mean Totalitarianism. It's a moneyless, classless, and STATELESS society, where the people run there own affairs. State Socialism, on the other hand, is indeed Totalitarianistic and, in most cases, corrupt and tyrranical. Thus, you should change it to- 'The War On State Socialism.' Also, that doesn't mean all Socialism. There are different forms that should be considered as either Democratic or Authoritarian.
Thank you for the welcome, comrade. Just wanting to drop some solidarity on all your a**es! XD
Just joken.
I live in Michigan. I live up north though.
Tsardom, we got past this a while ago. I know what communism is, and I'm aware of most different forms of socialism. As you should know, the War on Communism is perhaps a misleading name, in that it isn't unconditional. We will continue to target fascist and imperialist regions while also retaining outstanding alliances with Ucr and Juche Union. But the War on Communism is our heritage, our bloodline. To abandon it would mean to abandon the very foundation of this region. Perhaps it is symbolic, as we have become far more tolerant of 'democratic' communists in our region and outside of it. (Although I'd only consider communism democratic if it were achieved under a capitalist system with all participants voluntary.)
Furthermore, the War on Communism is no longer targeted at all communists, but rather at something I call the Empire: the combined forces of V Ming's armies and the ruins of The Red Fleet that have subjugated so many regions to their power.
Communism IS democratic. And when I say 'democratic,' I mean realize democracy, Direct Democracy. Everyone has a say, unlike in representative 'democracy.'
The 'upper' classes wouldn't stand for Communism, they wouldn't let it happen without a fight. That's why it just be achieved from revolution. The middle class came to power through revolution.
* real democracy. Sorry, autocorrect.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plpp&v=XN5TbqzxQBg&p=PLUO5x71vfTy0ZBr9XG1OQHm6BTWSHwrp5
No matter how noble a goal it is to institute a system as 'fair' and 'democratic' as the one you propose, taking the means of production out of private hands and placing them into collective control would require coercion and expropriation. Of course, the American Revolution and the Contra War were reactions to the tyrannical use of power by the state. But a system of voluntary transactions and exchanges is not built on coercion (negating the state, of course), so to overthrow this system and replace it with another built on majority rule and common ownership - which is by no means a view shared by 'the majority' - would be an unjustified use of force and coercion. So a communist society in that sense would not be built on freedom.
Ok, I'll be the one to come out and say it. I am against against democracy, as I know several others here are. That's my biggest personal issue with communism (not Stalin/Mao version, that's a whole different set of rules) direct democracy is merely a tyranny of the majority. If the majority want something of the minority just take it.
I'm not against democracy, Lack. Obviously, however, democracy works best in some areas and terribly in others, much like any organizational structure.
I defend democracy because authoritarian systems seek to do away with it entirely. This is wrong.
If I may lend my opinion on democracy....
I admit, I am not a fan. However, this is only in the context of the common meaning of democracy, or the use of force to determine the outcome of some event, authorized by the "majority" of a given group, without all members consenting to this agreement upon entrance into such a contract. As far as voluntary democracy goes, as in, the Boards of companies and so forth (joint owners of a piece of property), I am of course a supporter. And in a broader context, the market, not in production, but in consumption, is extremely democratic. With the intricacies of our beloved price system, the calculation is of course dependent on the scarcity of goods and resources, but also the DEMAND for such goods, resources, and products. Those goods that are more desirable often see their prices lowered over time due to more production, making them more available. This is because a good amount of people, a majority of some group, desire this product. And so the "majority", if such a term can be used loosely, can usually obtain goods they desire in aggregate more cheaply than if it was not desired by the majority. In this market, goods and services are loosely allocated to the wants of a great many people, so the people, the majority, determines what is produced through effective demand.
I was told I could return.
Post self-deleted by Blahbania.
Hi Einsiev
Hi.
*sheds tear
It's all so beautiful
I'm just a Conservative Minarchist sitting in my chair.
*loads shotgun*
I love hunting Liberals and Priuses.
Then here's something you might like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism
Do you think I should change my flag to this:
http://oi41.tinypic.com/23lxmyo.jpg
Or should I keep my current flag?
Democracy is just glorified Anarchy we NEED Republics to keep people free and have rights! Plus only in a republic are the rights of the minorities protected!
^No
what?
I wish words could describe how confused I am because of this statement
I think what he's trying to say is that direct democracy oppresses minority rights, and that republics are the only way the rights of all can be protected.
Oh. Well if that's the argument.. what would stop the majority from voting for a candidate that works for them? Oh wait.. :)
I would like to point out that our rights are not given, not respected, by the state. Whether that apparatus be democratic, republican, or authoritarian it makes no difference.
This^
What? Anarchy means no government. A Democracy is a form of government.
Democracy in its purest form is rule by the majority. Democracy means that if 51% of the population like the colour red and 49% like the colour blue, the 51% can vote to massacre the 49%.
Furthermore, democracy is NOT a glorified version of anarchy, unless you mean anarcho- syndicalism/communism. That being said, most anarchist political doctrines have nothing to do with the democratic systems (ie.Anarcho-Capitalism).
And glad to have you back, Mister Founder.
Oh no, we're not changing the subject on this one. I demand an answer for this ridiculousness posted by USZ
Only he can answer that.
Here's a question for y'all: what should be done about the Electoral College? Reformed? Abolished? Replaced?
Hahaha I'm sorry for the Confusion but the President of Pevvania pretty much got it right about what I meant. In a pure Democracy there really isn't a government. EVERY decision is left up to the population and whatever the Majority decides is what happens. There aren't any Laws in a Democracy because there is no Justice System. In a pure Democracy you have 100 people chasing 1 person and then when they catch up to him they say "Alright We believe that this guy stole something... but we are a democracy so... all in favor raise your hands" *100 hands raise* all who believe he is innocent raise your hands *1 hand rises* "Alright we have determined that this man is guilty for stealing... and since he's of the Rolian Race and we are of the Cosmian Race his punishment should be death... Heck we believe that the Rolians are all a nuisance there are 1000 Rolians walking the streets we need to clean are streets for the good people of the Cosmian Race. there's 100,000 of us and there isn't room in our great nation of RoliCosmia for these people we will have a vote about it tomorrow"
Another thing is that a Pure Democracy inadvertently requires a government otherwise the system fails and that's how you get Communism naturally (without violent revolution).
Republics are the only system of TRUE freedom that works.
Reformed. I personally think it should not be "winner takes all" of the states electoral college votes, and should instead be divided among the candidates, according to the election results.
My proposal example:
The state has 10 electoral college votes.
Republican candidate: 60%, Democrat candidate: 30%, Libertarian candidate: 10%
Republican gets 6, Democrat gets 3, and Libertarian gets 1
*sorry for the grammar errors I'm sick today so I stayed at home and I ment there is no Justice system because there are no laws. Laws can change day by day depending on what the majority decides so there is no stability and no way to enforce the laws without getting a mass amount of people together to go after a smaller group of people.... The OCCUPY Protest is an example of a pure Democracy System and that was the system they were advocating for.*
I agree with your proposal but I still think we should keep the electoral college but just amend it to have the Electoral votes rounded to the nearest percent and have each party win a proportional number of those votes as you said... The founders made it like it is for a reason. It was for good reason that it isn't by Majority vote.
I was in the middle of writing something when this showed up.
Looking back at what I had written out, this seems much more sane and makes a lot more sense, and is probably what I was going to say anyways, just worded better.
I think my thing was basically where the electors are still a set amount that's based on the amount of Congresspeople, but the electors are chosen directly as if they were Senators (way back when, when that was still a thing), and their vote is in turn influenced by the popular vote. It's essentially how I wrote it out in the Miencraftic factbook.
Although, if you're going to do it as Blahb proposes, you may as well just remove the entire college itself, keeping the electoral votes system, but distributing them proportionally to the election results.
ALTHOUGH, if you're going to do that it's essentially popular vote. I'm probably overthinking this too much, I've gotten myself trapped between redundancies and the popular vote. I'll come back later when I can think.
Definitely should move away from the winner-take-all system, though, that doesn't really represent the whole voting process very well.
I was thinking of just election via popular vote, but Blahb has a good idea.
Thanks :)
Good job snagging Cuito Cuanavale, by the way. That was a favourite of La Pasionara's :)
Well, Nelson Mandela has died. What are your thoughts on the man?
He was a good guy. Sucks to see him dead.
Indeed.
Man, that's sad.
:(
After reading Apartheid South Africa's rant I'm not so sure anymore :/
Either way, a sad loss for someone who took action in this world.
Well, my thoughts are the same as whenever anyone else dies:
RIP, sad for anyone close, oh well, moving on.
I mean, sure, it's sad that he died, but everyone around this side of the planet (and probably that one, too) is going to forget about it within a month or so, so we may as well just carry on.
Black equality was attained under Mandela, at the cost of South Africa's stability.
I do find it shameful, though, that my news feed is getting clogged with 'RIP Nelson Mandela' while Margaret Thatcher's death was celebrated. That's disgusting not only on a human level, but also on account for their achievements. Thatcher was way better.
USZ, i think a republic would only defend minorities if each had their own rep. Which would be extremely difficult considering a white male for example could mean someone from the Caucasus region, someone of Irish decent, someone of Nordic decent.. etc. Then you would have to have a rep for genders, which doesn't even begin to touch the surface of people who identify as "intersex". Unless you do the system so precise and detailed to the point of near impossibility, majority will rule. Why? Because In a republic where reps are elected, the majority are going to vote for the majority.
The only good government, is no government.
Post self-deleted by Muh Roads.
We need government, without it crime would be totally out of control. Anarchy is an extremely stupid concept.
So say someone steals your dog.. and you know who it is. You wouldn't take your dog back for yourself? You would rely on the government to go retrieve your pet?
I should reword my last post, With apartheid ended or not, many citizens of South Africa are still treated unequally.
First of all, the government doesn't retrieve pets. Second of all I'd go after them and call the cops.
You kind of made my point, possibly inadvertently. Taking action into your own hands is what it's about. Calling the cops is wise thing to do, but don't expect them to do anything else other than make a police report unless they see the situation unfold. Oh and about that average response time..LOL
Don't get me wrong, i think an extremely limited government is needed in some respects. But you'd be surprised at the power of a community.
My main concern is crime. I'm a Minarchist but I think we should keep a stable military and police force.
Well, mine too. But considering that crime happens irregardless of the police is a hard fact to argue. I feel more prepared defending myself with my own weapons than i do waiting 15 minutes for the cops to show up with theirs.
Military affairs, i cannot argue with. International politics *might* be a problem in a true anarchist society.
That's the biggest thing, crime happens regardless. Without a state you have the chance of thieving, murdering, and violation of rights. With a state you have the GUARANTEE of thieving, murdering, and violation of rights.
I cannot agree more to this. I personally have firearms because I like the idea of having the ability to actually fend for myself and my community. If you are arrested for dealing justice, then you are in fact ruled by the very same criminals you seek to do true justice too, except the ones prosecuting YOU are those same criminals, its just that they have authority. If you in fact live in a society that challenges you for supporting yourself, you no longer live in society, but in a helpless place in which the government is your nanny.
This is why I think people whom believe in restricting firearms, arresting vigilantes, and saying that the government is the ONE source to stop bad things are all fools. I avoid them because they give power only to themselves, because they themselves are the government, and care not for action, but for control.
I agree with Roads and Mallaska. But I don't think the main problem of anarchy would be crime. Local police forces would be able to organise just as easily without a central authority. My main concern is basically "But who would build the armies????" National defense, and the defense of weaker countries, needs to be the responsibility of the government.
Hello everyone. I come from the Federal Islands. I left because that place sucks, and this place does not.
I agree. That is the main reason anarchy would not work for long.
Welcome to Libertatem! I'm glad you feel that way ;)
Hiya Reagan, nice to have you here. We value our alliance with The Federal Islands, but it's pretty scary to see Neutric get elected.
IKR! I figured I could use a fresh start in a region of people who aren't stupid and annoying
Welcome to Libertatem :)
Would you like a place on the regional map?
Sure, where would I find it to pick a spot?
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=blahbania/detail=factbook/id=182540
I enjoy the usage of the upside down world map. I think a portion of Southeast Asia and Indonesia and the Phillipines would do nicely. If that's too much land I can size down a bit.
Heheh I love it... "ULTRA DARK GREEN"
Muh Roads I love that chicken joke. What a great flag
Haha, thanks. I think i'll be changing it too a new meme every now and then.
I am a firm believer in the federal government, but I would like to see the NSA and the CIA to be curtailed. Also the Departments of Labor and Commerce combined. Also I want real education reform, not that fancy private school or socially awkward home school. Strong public schools, better approaches towards education. Not the fifty different approaches to education per state, but a centralized education system. In Germany, my friend would tell me that they learn second languages in elementary school, learn physics and Advanced Algebra in middle school. The High school prepare students for the professional workforce, or send those to vocational schools to prepare them for the workforce. That is what I want for a more competitive America.
Welcome, RRRG.
Hello all.
May I claim South Africa on the map?
Good to see you here, RRRG.
Welcome to Libertatem, RRRG and Boksburg.
I'll go make some liberty cake for our new friends here.
Well this will be much better than TFI. I'm glad I'm here too.
Liberty Cakes!? I had better be getting a batch as well!
Tacos!
Liberty cake? Must taste like freedom!
I don't get those until sunday :(
It tastes like freedom and ingenuity, as the primary ingredient is elbow grease.
Tastes surprisingly fantastic.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.