Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Republic Of Minerva wrote:pfff Keynesians, always declaring war

What's a Keynesian?

I hope you all realize that impeaching a public official does not equal removing from office.

Impeachment is the bringing of formal criminal charges against a public official. Impeachment can lead to removal, but impeachment is not straight forward removal. Godisdead committed no crime, therefore rendering this move unjust.

If you want to remove him, say you are attempting to remove him. You all are getting your political jargon mixed up.

Rotgeheim wrote:I hope you all realize that impeaching a public official does not equal removing from office.

Impeachment is the bringing of formal criminal charges against a public official. Impeachment can lead to removal, but impeachment is not straight forward removal. Godisdead committed no crime, therefore rendering this move unjust.

If you want to remove him, say you are attempting to remove him. You all are getting your political jargon mixed up.

No need to be pedantic. We're using the term colloquially.

Rotgeheim wrote:What's a Keynesian?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

Rotgeheim wrote:I hope you all realize that impeaching a public official does not equal removing from office.

Impeachment is the bringing of formal criminal charges against a public official. Impeachment can lead to removal, but impeachment is not straight forward removal. Godisdead committed no crime, therefore rendering this move unjust.

If you want to remove him, say you are attempting to remove him. You all are getting your political jargon mixed up.

You're using an American/European legal term, not a Libertatem legal term. You are getting your realms of existence mixed up.

Humpheria wrote:What is everyone's opinion on an Article V convention?

Corporate Dictatorship vs Actual Dictatorship?

Either way your screwed. But I guess corporate.

Similarly to the "Fash vs. Anarch. Commie" question, I choose revolution.

Look at IRU, gettin featured.

Humpheria wrote:You're using an American/European legal term, not a Libertatem legal term. You are getting your realms of existence mixed up.

I'm using an English word in its correct usage. I'm not getting my realms of existence mixed up, you're just wrong.

The Constitution

Section II

Subsection II

A vote of no confidence in an appointed Board member or Manager may be undertaken via the House of Representatives. This shall be the power of impeachment.

The rules on impeachment are revised and clarified by the 11th Amendment:

Section I

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of Libertatem, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, abuse of power, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, through two out of the following three ways

Subsection I

The Founder seeks impeachment

Subsection II

A 4/5ths majority of the Board seeks impeachment

Subsection III

Two thirds of voting members of the House of Representatives seek impeachment

Rotgeheim wrote:I'm using an English word in its correct usage. I'm not getting my realms of existence mixed up, you're just wrong.

Guy, look at this below:

Pevvania wrote:The Constitution

Section II

Subsection II

A vote of no confidence in an appointed Board member or Manager may be undertaken via the House of Representatives. This shall be the power of impeachment.

The rules on impeachment are revised and clarified by the 11th Amendment:

Section I

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of Libertatem, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, abuse of power, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, through two out of the following three ways

Subsection I

The Founder seeks impeachment

Subsection II

A 4/5ths majority of the Board seeks impeachment

Subsection III

Two thirds of voting members of the House of Representatives seek impeachment

In case you forgot, friend, this isn't the US

The Liberty State wrote:Corporate Dictatorship vs Actual Dictatorship?

I'm shooting myself.

Corporate dictatorship. Sounds like it'd be some bourgeois dictatorship except only focused around corporate rule (Hey look america!).

I'd go with an actual Dictatorship depending on if it is left or right.

Post self-deleted by The Time Alliance.

The Time Alliance wrote:Also. Looking at the parties y'all have. They used to be so diverse....Now they seem to cover about the same areas.

Founded July 3rd, 2013. The Reaganist Libertarian Party: Libertarian

Founded November 11th, 2012. The Libertarian Party: what if I told you this was Right Libertarian too.

The Change United Movement: One Issue Party to stop war

Founded November 15th, 2013. The Anti-Corporatist Party: Anti-Fascist and Corporatism Right wing Libertarian

Founded on April 16th, 2014. The Libertarian Imperialists: My worst nightmare Libertarians

Founded on June 7th, 2014. The American Dream Party: Right Wing Libertarian

The Time Alliance wrote:[snip]

I know, right? It's almost like we're a libertarian region or something!

Speaking of nothing, did that thing ever pass that changes the House to only be citizens?

Miencraft wrote:I know, right? It's almost like we're a libertarian region or something!

If your going to do this just have one party for them all.

Thats why I hate american commies/species they have like 50+ different parties and then complain one can't get enough votes.

The Time Alliance wrote:If your going to do this just have one party for them all.

Hey, man, it's privatized, these guys can do whatever the hell they want.

Cum is not a one issue party it wants to enact term limits and wants to radically shrnk the regional government.

Miencraft wrote:Hey, man, it's privatized, these guys can do whatever the hell they want.

*mumbles about private Party management*

Cant we impeach hump instead

Hermesgrad wrote:Cant we impeach hump instead

Why, he is a pretty good leader, and I am not aware of any crimes he has broken.

What ever happened with the idea of collecting Vocaroo recordings from region-members and compiling them in a regional WFE?

Fifth best weather in Libertatem. Yay.

I'm back from my little vacation.

In regards for the fascism over anarchist communism thing, that's really stupid. You could just leave and live in a capitalist community.

Commies want world Communism so how would we move?

Libertarian Hero wrote:Commies want world Communism so how would we move?

That's easy, erect a large fence around a plot of land and call it "property". Soon enough, the hipp.. i mean commies will run out of whatever resource that's on your plot of land and will be forced to trade you.

I dunno, just a stupid idea. :p

Muh Roads wrote:That's easy, erect a large fence around a plot of land and call it "property". Soon enough, the hipp.. i mean commies will run out of whatever resource that's on your plot of land and will be forced to trade you.

I dunno, just a stupid idea. :p

Your sir, deserve a medal.

Libertarian Hero wrote:Commies want world Communism so how would we move?

Forcing others to abide by your economics is coercive, therefor not free. In a free world, we'd all be able to associate freely.

The Liberty State wrote:Your sir, deserve a medal.

No.

Zeouria wrote:Forcing others to abide by your economics is coercive, therefor not free. In a free world, we'd all be able to associate freely.

No.

It was a joke, sorry if your offended.

Muh Roads wrote:That's easy, erect a large fence around a plot of land and call it "property". Soon enough, the hipp.. i mean commies will run out of whatever resource that's on your plot of land and will be forced to trade you.

I dunno, just a stupid idea. :p

That's...actually quite funny.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:That's...actually quite funny.

It's actually hysterical. And very funny, yes.

Zeouria wrote:I'm back from my little vacation.

In regards for the fascism over anarchist communism thing, that's really stupid. You could just leave and live in a capitalist community.

I very strongly agree. I would argue that voluntarism leads to individuals choosing divisions of labour that maximise benefits for all transaction partners, which I believe capitalism does. One of the fundamental flaws of socialism is that it imagines the economy as a fixed pie of gradually diminishing wealth, the majority of which goes to the rich, when in fact empirical evidence and sound reason has proven that the complete opposite is true. I don't mind socialists voluntarily organising themselves, but all I can really think of that happening is a somebody saying to a group of people, "Okay guys, even though everybody else has generated enormous amounts of wealth by embracing technology, private property and efficient divisions of labour, I'm morally opposed to that, so let's do the exact opposite and limit ourselves." Socialism is the economic equivalent of the Amish.

I think 'voluntary socialism/communism' is a little paradoxical, as what Tsardom suggests accepts the legitimacy of private property. Many libertarians are voluntarists that would engage in violent, retaliatory action against the state in order to overthrow it, but according to Tsar/Zeouria, he would not encourage violent action to overthrow the current economic system, which he and most an-coms view as an exploitative system on par with the state.

Pevvania wrote:I think 'voluntary socialism/communism' is a little paradoxical, as what Tsardom suggests accepts the legitimacy of private property. Many libertarians are voluntarists that would engage in violent, retaliatory action against the state in order to overthrow it, but according to Tsar/Zeouria, he would not encourage violent action to overthrow the current economic system, which he and most an-coms view as an exploitative system on par with the state.

The social contract prohibits free association. I'm not stating violence shouldn't be enacted against the state, it should. It should because its coercive and has a monopoly on coercion. The current 'capitalist' system is the same way. I think you're mistaking me with NST; he believes the state can be dissolved without action. Private ownership of the means of production is not legitament, private property of personal belongings such as your own clothing, is. Bakunin stated private property of the means of production isn't legitament because it allows the owner to enslave others on that property, whether it be land or machine, while taking the lions share if the wealth procured.

Pevvania wrote:I very strongly agree. I would argue that voluntarism leads to individuals choosing divisions of labour that maximise benefits for all transaction partners, which I believe capitalism does. One of the fundamental flaws of socialism is that it imagines the economy as a fixed pie of gradually diminishing wealth, the majority of which goes to the rich, when in fact empirical evidence and sound reason has proven that the complete opposite is true. I don't mind socialists voluntarily organising themselves, but all I can really think of that happening is a somebody saying to a group of people, "Okay guys, even though everybody else has generated enormous amounts of wealth by embracing technology, private property and efficient divisions of labour, I'm morally opposed to that, so let's do the exact opposite and limit ourselves." Socialism is the economic equivalent of the Amish.

Voluntaryism allows [I]everything[/I]. If we were to live in a Capitalist community and disagreed with it, we could just leave and live under whatever system we believe is better.

Saying that socialism is the economic equivalent of the Amish has no substance. Give me a comparison of Anarchist Capitalist and Anarchist Communism, and show me how communism is the equivilant of the Amish compared to the 'amazing wealth procuring system which is capitalism.'

Michelle Obama: Americans are taking advantage of how great Barack has made us.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Michelle Obama: Americans are taking advantage of how great Barack has made us.

If it ain't the Obamuh (yes, I know that it's spelled Obama)

My reaction:

http://m.quickmeme.com/meme/3p7lbq

Atomic Fest wrote:Guy, look at this below:

In case you forgot, friend, this isn't the US

The fact that we aren't in the US or any other English-speaking nation does not change the fact that you are using the word incorrectly.

Rotgeheim wrote:The fact that we aren't in the US or any other English-speaking nation does not change the fact that you are using the word incorrectly.

Again, we're using the term colloquially - that is to say, as most who are not well-versed in government procedure know it. The point is to remove GID from office.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Again, we're using the term colloquially - that is to say, as most who are not well-versed in government procedure know it. The point is to remove GID from office.

Colloquial usage of a legal term? Professionalism at its finest.

Rotgeheim wrote:Colloquial usage of a legal term? Professionalism at its finest.

Fair point. You have the mouth of a politician - take that as you will.

Rotgeheim wrote:Colloquial usage of a legal term? Professionalism at its finest.

Wikipedia: Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment.

The Constitution: A vote of no confidence in an appointed Board member or Manager may be undertaken via the House of Representatives. This shall be the power of impeachment.

If you disagree with the terminology used in the Constitution, then you shouldn't have ratified it. You were one of the original signers of the Constitution.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Fair point. You have the mouth of a politician - take that as you will.

I like to take that in a nice light. Thank you.

Although you probably intended something more abrasive.

Pevvania wrote:If you disagree with the terminology used in the Constitution, then you shouldn't have ratified it. You were one of the original signers of the Constitution.

That was, like, eighty years ago. I didn't read the terms and agreements back then.

Rotgeheim wrote:That was, like, eighty years ago. I didn't read the terms and agreements back then.

Rotgeheim wrote:not reading what you sign? Professionalism at its finest.

Rotgeheim wrote:That was, like, eighty years ago. I didn't read the terms and agreements back then.

Because not reading things you then approve is a great idea, right?

Example: Obamacare

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/constitution-tl-dr.jpg

Hermesgrad wrote:Cant we impeach hump instead

Any member of the House may motion to impeach any elected regional official. Off you wish took motion, go ahead. It is a free region.

Hermesgrad wrote:Cant we impeach hump instead

Uh-oh, shots fired

Post self-deleted by Scheinfeld.

Post self-deleted by Northern Prussia.

I motion to impeach everyone except for me.

Miencraft wrote:I motion to impeach everyone except for me.

Oh, and I will go and eat anyone who tries to second this.

Seriously.

SPEAKER ACT

Section 1 this act will hereby establish the position of Speaker of the House

Section 2 the speaker will be elected by the voting members of the House,

Section 2 the speaker will have the granted role in the House

1. Lead the House in and setting rules and procedure for debate

2. Review laws passed by the House to send to the Board

3. Maintain order of the House

4. Record laws passed by the House

5. Insure that proper quorum is met for voting.

6. Record voting members of the House

Section 3 the speaker serves at the confidence of the House, the Speaker may be removed by a simple vote of no confidence.

Ammedments and grammar check gladly welcomed

Ensure rather than insure.

I can't help but see this as an unnecessary expansion of regional government.

Pevvania wrote:Uh-oh, shots fired

I am terrified.

Mr president you had put on your Campaign about an emphasizes on the House

Miencraft wrote:I motion to impeach everyone except for me.

That's good, we need more peaches

Northern Prussia wrote:SPEAKER ACT

Let me stop you there - the House is a not only a legislative body, but also a civilian body of private interest. If the House members want order, they can create it themselves without establishing a bureaucracy.

Northern Prussia wrote:Mr president you had put on your Campaign about an emphasizes on the House

An expansion of House influence, not general government expansion.

So if I and Rotgeheim want order in this form we shall vote for it. This is a House for those not involved in the government as stated by the constitution and this is wholly constitutional for us to do so.

And here you see a bill as if it cannot be ammended. Not even once. That is what I see the government running now.

This is not Bureaucracy. This is allowing for a more organized House, adding more deputies to the Managers is a clear step to executive bureaucracy.

Whatever happened to the National Liberal Party?

Its still active from what I hear. Its like the Green Party in America. Its there, but no-one cares.

Northern Prussia wrote:SPEAKER ACT

Section 1 this act will hereby establish the position of Speaker of the House

Section 2 the speaker will be elected by the voting members of the House,

Section 2 the speaker will have the granted role in the House

1. Lead the House in and setting rules and procedure for debate

2. Review laws passed by the House to send to the Board

3. Maintain order of the House

4. Record laws passed by the House

5. Insure that proper quorum is met for voting.

6. Record voting members of the House

Section 3 the speaker serves at the confidence of the House, the Speaker may be removed by a simple vote of no confidence.

are we now voting for this?

No. Sigh.... it needs some more work

Northern Prussia wrote:adding more deputies to the Managers is a clear step to executive bureaucracy.

u wot m8

The Deputies don't do anything.

Miencraft wrote:u wot m8

The Deputies don't do anything.

not yet any way

Lack There Of wrote:not yet any way

They still aren't really going to do anything.

They have no real power and likely never will.

Miencraft wrote:They still aren't really going to do anything.

They have no real power and likely never will.

good point

Northern Prussia wrote:This is not Bureaucracy. This is allowing for a more organized House, adding more deputies to the Managers is a clear step to executive bureaucracy.

I am not against House reform. But making someone responsible for all regional legislation is not the way to do it.

I'm not for the speaker act currently, but I am excited to see someone else proposing legislation and coming up with new ideas. Way to go NP!

Miencraft wrote:They still aren't really going to do anything.

They have no real power and likely never will.

And that's why I was opposed to creating them.. but Humpy made me.

Muh Roads wrote:And that's why I was opposed to creating them.. but Humpy made me.

I wouldn't say that. I just suggested it, with Pev nearby.

Humpheria wrote:I wouldn't say that. I just suggested it, with Pev nearby.

If a suggestion is what you call it when a robber has a gun to your head... lol I kid, I kid.

Muh Roads wrote:If a suggestion is what you call it when a robber has a gun to your head.

that is actually what i call taxation

Hello, I am Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Commonwealth Of Free Nations and I will be checking up threw this nice embassy posting thing so I don't have to creat 20 some puppets for each region... Now isn't that nice. ^_^

So sad

http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=297246

Miencraft wrote:I motion to impeach everyone except for me.

I second this.

In all honesty Athens might be the closest thing to a true democracy in the world.

A republic (even if elected) is an Oligarchy and not a true Democracy.

The General Of The American Empire wrote:I second this.

I am required by law to eat you now.

The framers didnt want a democracy.

Northern Prussia wrote:The framers didnt want a democracy.

They didn't want political parties either, but look what happened.

And an elected senate. Most did not want a national bank. And a large army

Lack There Of wrote:that is actually what i call taxation

Hey me too! *brofist*

The Time Alliance wrote:In all honesty Athens might be the closest thing to a true democracy in the world.

A republic (even if elected) is an Oligarchy and not a true Democracy.

Direct Democracy can result in Tyranny of the Majority please consult your docter if you think that this would work

Listen, Republic. Enough said.

Lets take the hump act thing where we tried to make hump the regional whore under a Direct Democracy that would have passed. Under our republic humpys rights were protected.

The General Of The American Empire wrote:Lets take the hump act thing where we tried to make hump the regional whore under a Direct Democracy that would have passed. Under our republic humpys rights were protected.

The patriarchy at work once again.

The General Of The American Empire wrote:Lets take the hump act thing where we tried to make hump the regional whore under a Direct Democracy that would have passed. Under our republic humpys rights were protected.

I say we pass the Hud Act, but let's make everything optional. That way we can have a possibility of having Humpy's sexiness.

The General Of The American Empire wrote:Lets take the hump act thing where we tried to make hump the regional whore under a Direct Democracy that would have passed. Under our republic humpys rights were protected.

That's a funny... how did you put it? Oh! "Example."

In the actual world, you see, people vote to make someone the town whore.

I think you should think over you... hm... 'evaluation' of Direct Democracy, and how it works.

*People do not vote (edit)

Miencraft wrote:Because not reading things you then approve is a great idea, right?

Example: Obamacare

You all and your incorrect political terminology. It's the Affordable Care Act, not Obamacare.

I hope you all realize I'm not trying to bust your chops or anything. I'm just pointing out some things that could help improve our region.

Also, it helps to be unbiased at times.

Went to a scholarship interview today. When asked if I pursued politics out side academia I informed the panel infancy I did. They asked for examples so I rounded a couple off absentmindedly model un, YAL, and with out thinking nation states. At which point I kind of froze up thinking "did I really just fvck up my chances at free money be equating an online forum/game to real world experience?"

The fear that went through my soul when one of the interviewers said "nation states?" questioningly is unfathomable. After a quick confirmation of that in fact was what I had said I was ready to leave and just give up, but against all odds and reason there was salvation to be had.

The interviewer sitting in the middle got super exited and proceeded to inform his panel mates that he loves nation states and was an avid player in his early years of college. I never thought I would be happy to see someone as lame as me who devotes time to this nonsense, but at that moment I was exuberant .

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