Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Holy sh!t einseiv?!?!? Good god. Retreat to the pub!
Language. Order. Now.
Please don't start another debate about communism. I think both commies and capies are treated horribly. Communism is considered as a land where everyone is oppressed, while capitalism is considered as a land where the rich gets richer, and the poorer gets poorer. And this is not right at all.
I have to say... I am very dissapointed at this region.
Why are you here in Libertatem anyway?
I invited him.
Oh, and if you've got a spare puppet, send it on over to International Republican Union. Thanks :)
Bulgaria, I apologise on behalf of some of our citizens for the way you've been treated. The region is going through great change in the nations it considers enemies and in the way it perceives them. It's pretty hard for quite a few of us to swallow right now, and rightfully so... the War on Communism has been based on eradicating the forces of tyranny across NationStates, and only recently have we started to realise that there are a minority of regions like UCR that are voluntarist communes. The main enemy of ours, which should be yours, too, are the statists: the Stalinists, the Maoists, the Bolsheviks and the quasi-fascists.
The Libertatem-FFS Einsiev Mutual Exclusion Pact
NOTING that Einsiev is a massive troll,
ACKNOWLEDGING that he's frequently switched between our two regions,
DISTURBED by his personal declarations of war against the region he's not presently in,
FEARFUL of his plans for future disturbances,
Libertatem and the Federation Of Free States hereby ban [nation]Einsiev[/nation] and any of his puppet nations from ever returning to our regions.
Signed,
[nation=short]Snabgag[/nation]
WA Delegate of Libertatem
[nation=short]The Balkans[/nation]
President of the Federation of Free States
On the 31st of July, 2013, Snabagag and President Balkans agreed to the Mutual Exclusion Pact which I authored, guaranteeing that both regions would emplace a ban on Einsiev if he ever attempted to return to either of us. He's declared war on Libertatem and the FFS various times, has aligned himself with Leather-Clad Germany and other Nazis, and planned to raid the FFS and blame it on our region.
I don't care how many 'second chances' he asks for. He's caused so much trouble for both of our regions, and we've been lenient on him for too long. Now I suggest we all forget about him and move on.
The UCR had troubles when we started alowing Capitalists into the region. A few nations left, but our most active members loved the idea of having Capitalists in the region, because long ago we had a Fascist in the region and we had great political debates with him (we ban Fascists on site now though). I hope that this regions members do the same, and it is quick and for the majority part painless. I will write a speech on my political ideology, and post it later today, to show the members of this great region that I, and the rest of Ucr, are NOT totalitarian/authoritarian Communists and Socialists... but instead we are free Democratic Socialists, Pure Communists, Anarchists, Anarcho-Communists, and we even have some Capitalists, infact C I is our minister of foreign affairs!
Solidarity, comrade!
Folks I hereby announce my resignation as chairman of the board and I'm going to retire out in the IRU. Say what you want about me but I honestly did enjoy my time here. Good luck with the socialists and communists.
Good luck out there, bromade!
I'll have to write that speech tommorow.
29 hours left on voting for the POLICY Act. Looks like it's going to pass.
We also need more democracy. Anyone wishing to author a bill attempting to make the regional government more democratic (i.e. more officials chosen directly by the House and not through appointment) telegram me.
I'd like to apply for the open board member position, please. :)
@ Liberosia
What was that book you recomended again? "Economics in One Lesson?"
Either that, or, even better, "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Rand and her colleague.
You mean, "the virtues of altruism, cooperation, and mutual aid?" :p
I'd advocate for a Direct Democracy here, instead of a Representative Government.
i support Representative Democracy.
No. Not that. Ayn Rand extols her revolutionary idea that true morality is dependent entirely on the happiness of each individual (i.e. Reason). Since we are above and apart from the rest of nature, the individual has the moral capacity to serve only himself, with no obligation to irrationally sacrifice for others (unless, of course, it serves his happiness).
It's the philosophy of Objectivism.
@ Amarican
Gee, I wonder why! :D
Sadly Capitalism has ruined basic compassions. People no longer have manners, they are no longer selfless, they no longer care for one another. Morals are dead... I do not want to live in a society with no morals.
Exploitation runs rampant throughout the world.
@DB
False. Capitalism has done more, materially, for mankind. Ever. The economic data validates this conclusion as well as sound reason.
I would rather live in a society where men are mostly selfish, working for themselves, and indirectly benefiting his fellow man through voluntary trade. Additionally, charity, as a result of wealth creation, is higher than it has ever been. The United States is the most giving nation in the world. Honor still exists, as well as common courtesy; it is your duty as an individual to live life the way you want to.
True morality can be found in Capitalism. Rights. The Right to private property and the full employment of mental faculties (rational thought) sets us on a path of choices that only we can make.
America uses 30% of every nation resources every year. 15% of Americans live in poverty. 1 out 3 Americans are over weight, while milllions die of starvation. Is this giving? I think not.
Exploitation is an abused term. It merely means the use of something/someone for an end designed to better oneself. Trade is exploitation done by the two parties involved. A laborer exploits an employer for capital just as an employer exploits a laborer for the same reason.
Extortion is when force is applied via Government to make people do things. That's wrong and immoral.
Taking the lions share of ones finished product value, then giving them a small amount of money in return is exploitation.
One cannot become rich if he does not do this (on th exception of inventing a useful product).
America has a large economy, 30% as you noted, because it is a center of production. This is predicated on trade with other nations (sometimes it is immoral trade through the IMF or WTO). When the trade is voluntary, the other nations and the individuals who reside within them benefit as well. Just because one person/nation does well, doesn't mean it is at the expense of others. The amount of wealth created is not fixed. It is ever growing through production. Therefore the "30%" problem is not a real problem at all; it is a sign that America is still a very productive nation.
15% of Americans are in poverty? Relative to the rest of the world, America has little to no poverty. Poverty is defined by our government to justify ever higher welfare spending and coercion that displaces capital investment that could really raise living standards. The poor in America are better off than the aristocracy 200 years ago, with technology produced through capitalism and abundance produced through capitalism.
The living standards of people around the world have been rising, especially since the 80's. Every year wages rise because of increased production and investment. Those people dying of starvation are held down by oppressive governments (for example, central African warlords and authoritarian South-east Asian governments who basically ban business). Only free market policies can save these people.
Voluntary charity is higher than it has ever been. Simply because it does not meet the needs of all the billions of people on this planet is not a refutation of the fact that it exists, and that it exists out of the goodness of people's hearts.
look at Andrew Carnegie, he had donated so much and still is even in death.
Oh here he goes with the Labor Theory of Value...just no.
There is no built in value of any product. There is only subjective or speculative value predicated on individuals's evaluation of marginal utility and demand schedules. The small amount of money, as you said, is the price of labor on a market. It is small proportionate to other things, but it is the price because it is what people are willing to pay for it.
The "lion's share" is an absurd description. Almost all profit is reinvested back into production, fueling better living standards and wages. The capitalist's personal share is at the expense of his future income. Wealthy people only become wealthy by making society better off through lower prices, higher wages, and more production (in a free market, that is).
@Amarican
Thanks, that's my favorite example.
You cannot argue against economic reality. Economics is independent of philosophy or utilitarian "shoulds". It is about scarcity and allocation of resources. Ultimately, it creates the greatest good for the greatest number. However, this fact is not its justification.
If we are going to give examples of growth, living standards, etc, then I have a few up my sleave.
After the Anarchist Communist/Syndicalist revolution in Spain (Catalonia and Barcalona), we saw a gigantic increase in the things listed above. Women had the same rights as men (before the revolution they had no rights!), life expetency increase 50-80%, Potato farms produced 50% more Potatoes (due to the expropriation of all privite property, and the introduction of new fertilizers), all business was handled by the workers for the betterment of workers, general happiness increased 3 times as much as it was before the revolution. My source is "an account of the arragon communes."
Sorry for being slow, I am not using a computer.
The simple fact of the matter is that capitalism is about voluntary trade. Communes do not work in general relative to individual exchange, but they can work sometimes if done in a voluntary fashion. It is entirely possible that this form of explicit trade in small partnerships can be better relative to the SPANISH FASCIST GOVERNMENT before the Revolution. However, the productivity increases you take note of pale in comparison to the productivity created by industrial capitalism.
And Anarcho-Communism is bassed on voluntary work.
Excuse me? Fascist government BEFORE? The Fascists came after. Anarchist Spain failed because the whole world was against it. The Fascists, Communists, Capitalists, the Liberal "Democracies," Authoritarians, etc.
In the major cities, Spain just started Industrializing... In three years of Anarcho-Communism they were fully Industrialized! Production was the highest in Spain than EVER before.
Mercantilist, fascist, whatever. The point is the State had control of the economy.
I also question your figures regarding production in anarchist Spain. There are counter figures that extol rising scarcity and unemployment. Also, the anarchists in Spain were violent and not at all voluntary. They killed people and took their stuff...that's generally considered a bad thing.
Killed them and took their stuff? Have you ever bothered to study Anarchist Spain?
They expropriated. They gave to the people what the people created. Fancy Hotels, for example, were used as hospitals, and dinning halls. They were created by 1000's of workers toil, but only used by the rich. After the Social Revolution Fancy Hotels were used in common by the workers.
I have not, as a matter of fact, studied the Spanish Revolution. However, knowing logical/rational economics, I can safely assume that the figures you are using are either manipulated or misrepresented or exaggerated. There was, as I have just done some research, a lot of unemployment, and production shrank below its 1929 level as the Spanish Anarchists literally closed businesses and concentrated production in a few.
My source, which I have not read most of: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm
A detailed account of the Revolution and it unsound economics/violence. These "anarchists" actually had a leading government and, like we all could expect, the collectivization led in most cases to the, wait for it, Tragedy of the Commons.
Looking at the world in a more macro sense, it is obvious that Capitalism is the greatest producer of wealth and prosperity, as well as population increases. I am glad to be alive, and without capitalism, I would likely not be and my ancestors would probably still be poor, living in conditions like the Dark Ages. The idea that leftists must use small examples of "success" to validate irrational economic theories, rather than broad data and history, lends itself to the victory of capitalism over socialism.
The Anarchist revolution began in 1936.
The article can speak for itself as my opposing evidence. I am more apt to trust sound economic reasoning before manipulated truths.
My source:
http://www.libcom.org/library/account-agrarian-collectives-souchy
I am not one to lie.
I am not one to lie.
Thats a lie!
Post self-deleted by Democratic Bulgaria.
Deductive logic trumps inductive data every time. Data vs. data can win no arguments. But I have economics on my side.
Economics on your side?
After debating for 2 hours, it is clear no one is going to win.
it will always be like that. no one can win the fight of ideas between Capitalism and Communism.
It is fun to debate, though. I enjoy it.
For the most part Liberosia and I are similar, since we're both libertarians. Which is nice.
I am a Libertarian Republican.
I'm getting tired of the regions flag! :p
The flag will stay. It's a tradition.
I love the flag.
Post self-deleted by Democratic Bulgaria.
How was everyone's day?
Post self-deleted by The Amarican Empire.
i feel freer then ibwas last week.
i was*
Well congrats.
For the record George Orwell's "A Homage to Catalonia" is probably the best account of the Spanish revolution/civil war. I recommended it to all.
It's a darn shame to see ISA leave so soon. He and I didn't agree on everything, but his passion for reform and debate were a boon to the region's activity and diversity. His divisive opinions caused controversy, but in a way united the region to look forward to the future.
I will try to continue what Con and ISA started - real legislative reform. Once POLICY officially passes, I will put the PUPPET Act on the floor, as the first of several bills in a comprehensive legislative reform package.
WARNING: exhaustion-inspired stupidity ahead.
The Virtues of Road Socialism
A short, crappy story explaining why privatising roads sucks.
A man named Theodore Moonblood rode into Frontierland, Disney. The look on his face was mean and steely, his handlebar moustache thick as a blade. Men paved the streets, eyeing him up and down. Trouble was brewing in the hot Texan air. "No Ranger's come inta town 'n years," remarked an ageing miner.
But that's because it was so awesome - the Chrysler Ranger had a slick, silver paint job, with a metallic finish and a loud motor. So basically it was a f*cking badass car, of course these losers hadn't seen one in ages because it was a BEAST! So anyway, Moonblood rode real slow to show off to these poor low-lives, making sure to occasionally rev the V9 turbo engine to attract even more attention.
Teddy pulled it into the driveway adjacent to Walt's Bar, calling out, "One whiskey!" A shot glass slid up the bar and into the grip of Moonblood's hand, who quickly skulled the drink, without losing balance (he was that much of a badass). He then ordered a fried chicken with plain toast, which he started digging in to.
"So, stranger," uttered the barman as he wiped the tables, "what brings ya to Frontierland?"
"I wanted to experience the fine liquor, chicken and western feel. I also had to get out of the house cos my wife is being a bitch, so I figured this'd be a good place to crash."
"That so," the barman mumbled. "How was the toll on the way in?"
"It was fine. Now, I better get going now."
"Wait there, stranger!" the barman called. "You don't suppose... you got enough to share around?"
Baffled, Moonblood asked, "What do you mean?"
The elderly barman began laughing. First chuckling, but then it developed into a hysterical laugh and then a maniacal, evil one. Moonblood thought this was scary, so he pulled out his favourite Desert Eagle and put two bullets in his head. The barman reeled in pain, collapsing to the floor as blood began oozing out of his lifeless cranium.
Feeling somewhat calmer now that the evil man was dead, Moonblood left the saloon, much to the shock of its patrons. Getting back into his Ranger, he went back up the road he came from to pull into the Disney Toll Booth. Handing out a five dollar note to the tollman, he said, "Can't you read, sir?"
Moonblood gazed to his right, and to his horror, he saw a sign reading 'Exit Toll: $700'.
"But this isn't right! On my way in it said the exit toll was $5!"
"Yeah, well, management decided to change that," said the tollman smugly.
"But this is the only road out of town!"
"Yes, and now you will never, ever leave. Muhahahaha. Muhahahahahahaha. MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
"Wow, that's rude," Moonblood said, before using his iPad to file a complaint to Disney for this evidently poor treatment of a customer. (The tollman was later reprimanded by his superiors and forced to apologise.) "Well, then, I guess I'll just drive through the desert to leave."
Moonblood took the Ranger back around, and veered off the side of the road and into the Disnave Desert. It was pretty bumpy, and there were loads of cactuses and snakes, and Moonblood HATES SNAKES!!! But he kept driving and found that there was a ravine at the edge of the grounds, and on the other side was the rest of the Magic Kingdom. He circled the town, and he found that it was surrounded by a ravine, and if you drive into ravines you generally die. This frustrated Moonblood, who was thinking of a way to get out of this craphole and turn up to work for once.
The ghost of the barman then popped up in his rear-view mirror, "Ahahaha! Can't you see? You ignored my warnings, and now you will be stuck in this town forever!... unless you can pay for the road toll, which is just a rip-off. But we don't trade the US dollar here, so you're pretty much screwed."
"No! There's got to be another way!" cried Moonblood.
"There is no way. You are doomed! Doooooomed!" the ghost cried, before elapsing into a series of sputtering coughs and wheezes. He then vanished.
Moonblood kept circling Frontierland, until he spotted a railway track leading south. Christened 'Eastwood Ravine Bridge' by a sign next to the track, the middle section was missing, leaving a gap straight down to the ravine below.
"Now this is heavy!" muttered Moonblood. "But I'll try it!"
Teddy lined himself up with the tracks, revved his engine and sped off down the bridge.
25, 37, 42, 51... "Oh, God, I'm not gonna make it!" gasped Moonblood as he rapidly approached the gap in the bridge.
The voice of the old barman then appeared in his head. "Use the force, Moonblood."
Inspired by these uplifting yet useless words, Moonblood pushed hard on the accelerator, taking the Ranger up to 88. A vivid ocular array of light and fire then engulfed the car, skating it off the bridge tracks and back to the future! (100 years in the future, by the way.)
But unfortunately, the Ranger crashed into a train upon getting back to the future, exploding both vehicles and killing Moonblood instantly. The city then renamed the ravine Moonblood Ravine.
Message of the story: don't drink and drive. Also, privatised roads are a bad idea.
Now that was quite possibly the dumbest piece of literature I've ever come up with. This is what happens when you get no sleep.
ISA astounds me. I propose legislation and he told me I should be removed from office (which is unconstitutional).
On Chatzy.
Yes, he had a tendency to make some rather... abrasive comments, and I still am baffled as to why he voted against PROCESS.
You are a roads socialist
How insightful, Liberosia :I
I'm a purer libertarian than you :p
Really? Are you? I had no idea!
I feel good about myself when I'm around mixed-bred libertarians. XD. Like I'm the moral rock.
I'm far more libertarian than I was in, say, 2011, and I expect myself to slip further to the right.
Anarchism awaits. However, objectivism is just as good and probably just as likely.
What are the goals of Objectivism, aside from maintaining the individual rights of man?
Also, I've started on Economics in One Lesson. Just getting past the 'broken window' fallacy right now.
Objectivism is basically classical liberalism on steroids. Barely a government.
Good, it's a nice, simple, logical book that serves as a refutation of State intervention. Hazlitt is a boss.
i am Libertarian Republican. i think that some government is a good thing. but if you have to much it will kill a economy.
I am a more pure Libertarian than all of you. :)
Anarcho-Communism not only frees the individual from government, it frees the individual from wage slavery, domestic slavery, the constant worry of money, bosses, other workers working against him for more money, egoism, etc. Anarchism's first goal, the social revolution, is meant to destroy the government AND Capitalism. It's meant to expropriate everything back to the people. "Anarcho-"Capitalism, I believe, is controdictary for the reasons of the things listed above... In fact it is only an American phenomonon! Anarcho-Communism was first mentioned in a book in the early 1910's, and Anarcho-Capitalism, thought of by an AMERICAN, in the 1950's (or 60's).
I think Ayn Rand was on the brink of anarcho-capitalism the last years of her life (or rather voluntaryism). She had condemned ancaps as the hippies of the right but her writings suggest anarcho capitalism...
Post self-deleted by Democratic Bulgaria.
Libertarianism is about giving freedom to the people.
Expropriating property by force is not 'freedom', and violates the rights of individuals. That's nearly as bad as government expropriation, although in this case it's done by tyranny of majority (or minority, depending on the context). Although it's not an ideology I believe in, anarcho-capitalism levels the playing field for everyone to compete without any negative government interference. In capitalizm, the individual can rise or fall based on their own efforts. To me, that's freedom. Anarcho-communism on a large guarantees equality, but certainly not freedom.
Rothbard was the real developer of the ancap philosophy.
Also, with much thanks to the coke logo,
Enjoy Capitalism
Why should those things belong to the rich? They sure didn't make them. It should be owned, in common, by the workers. Why should years and years of toil, put forth to invent a new machine then improved on by generations of workers, belong to the rich? And if they try to take it back they will be arrested. If they refuse arrest, and fight back, they are shot. That is not freedom.
If we look at structure theory we see, clearly, that the rich rule over the poor. That government is a tool used by these rich people to oppress and propogandinize the poor. You cannot have an Anarchist society with Capitalism.
with anarcist communism you have a higher chance of chaos. in anarchist capitalism there wouldbbe a structure of order.
False. Government is the great destroyer of wealth via regulation, taxation, and inflation. Capitalism's primary result is more and better consumer goods for the general population. So you see, in a free society, one man cannot become rich unless he does something (extremely well) to increase the prosperity of consumers.
To quote Peter Kropotkin in his book, "The Conquest of Bread," on page 14 chapter 1:
"All things are for all. Here is an immense stock of tools and implememnts; here are all those iron slave which we call machines, which saw and plane, spin and weave for us, unmaking and remaking, working up raw matter to produce the marvels of our time. But nobody has the right to seize these machines and say, "This is mine; if you want to use it you'll have to pay a tax on every product you produce," any more than the fuedal lord of midevil times said to the peasant, "This hill, this meadow belongs to me! You must pay ME a tax on every sheaf of corn you reap, on every rick you biuld."
All it to all! If the man and the woman bear their fair share, they have the right to all that is produced by all, and that share is enough to secure them well-being."
@ Amarican
If any, what is the logic behind that statement?
This is a classic socialist cliché. 97% of businesses are small, so a very tiny proportion of capitalists are these 'parasites' that you'd describe.
In many cases, the workers do not 'build' enterprise in the way that you'd describe. If a man has a good idea and wants to make it a reality, he'll employ workers to help him. My house is undergoing renovation right now, and while my dad is essentially a one-man workforce, he occasionally uses the help of his friends. They're paid, of course. Just the other day, my dad's friend Alex came round and plastered a spare bedroom, and he's going to paint the room next week. Does this mean he's somehow entitled to ownership of this room? No. Alex was enlisted for the specific task of plastering the room, he was paid for it, and he will be paid again for a different job. But it does not belong to him because my father has his own intentions of what he wants to do to the house, and he has the right to see those intentions fulfilled because he owns the property.
told you in a telegram.
There is no class, in a free, moneyed society. Class is a necessary distinction one has to make when considering statism (for example, the Soviet Union had a class of wealthy Party bureaucrats and everyone else [very poor of course] and France used to have a nobility, peasant, and middle class enforced by the government). Under capitalism, no man is constrained in the amount of property he can legally hold, so anyone, with the desire, determination, and innovation can better his own living standards. This is done, mainly, through capital investment in which profit revenues are derived from increased production.
People own different things because of 1) private property and 2) trade. A worker is NOT entitled to the property of the factory owner because it is NOT his. It is the same thing as saying we should redistribute the factory owner's income for "equality". One can only imagine the chaos in a society where people randomly helped themselves to other people's property at their leisure.
And what is a worker? He is both a consumer and a capitalist/producer. The lowest order of worker to the highest sells: his labor, and the skills comprised within it. A worker has absolutely no right to seize the property of a larger-sized-capitalist; the wage he derives from his labor is merely the price the other capitalist and worker agree upon. One man is selling something, the other buys it: it's that simple. So you see, under this Subjective Theory of value, the worker is paid in full after he derives his wage, and then benefits again from the self interest in the system which causes deflationary prices without a fall in the price for labor.
My communists friend's theory is false, also, on the technical level. Basically, everyone who saves (in a bank) and derives interest, or somehow owns a stock, is a capitalist and is earning the profit off of a company.
Entrepreneurs are the cornerstone of any society: the banishment of entrepreneurship was the main cause for the fall of the Soviet Union. Contrary to your opinion, the job of the entrepreneur (or "bourgeosie") is pivotal. His main function is forecasting quantities and speculating on consumer needs/wants in order to meet those needs at a price which clears the market. I've known entrepreneurs, my father included, who worked much harder than the people working for them. 16 hour days the norm, salaries below some of their higher employees; that's labor.
The idea that the laborer without an entrepreneur can produce anything well or of value is a joke. The laborer, assuming labor has been divided, could not hope to earn a wage as a business enterprise failed.
There is no class!
Owning a house is rightfully just, owning a machine is not. Owning a watch is rightfully just, owning the machine which make the watch is not. Anarcho-Communism does not mean no privite possessions.
there is no wage slavery either. slavery is force. no one forces the worker to accept the amount payed for his work.
...that was quite possibly one of the most eloquent political statements I've ever read. Could not put it any better than that.
That quote from Conquest of Bread is a meaningless, communist soundbite. He completely rejects the idea of property rights and has no idea of the importance of the entrepreneur in sustaining a modern capitalist economy. Not everyone has the capability to be an entrepreneur, indeed many fail, but the success of them has produced more wealth, all translating in more consumer goods and lower prices: an increase in the living standards of the general people.
The capitalist derives his wealth from trade of different properties/capitals with other people. His goal in life is to serve the consumer (the worker). And that is why capitalism is the greatest system ever devised. Purely through self-interest, people try and produce things for other people that eventually betters everyone's lives.
The consumer is the true ruler of industry, not the factory boss. He's unreasonably demanding, cruel, and irrational. His ideals, his demands, his purchasing power steer markets.
Liberosia, my friend, as I stated before: "Anarcho-Communism does not mean no private property." It means everyone has the right to own a watch, food, house, bed, etc, but does not have the right to own land and machines. Those need to be owned by everyone in common.
So, you define private property as owning only consumer's goods and not the means of production? That is literally the worst definition I have ever heard, and defeats the whole purpose of private property. If the means of production (i.e. capital) are homogenized, the consumer goods will be too. Also, without an effective price system, everyone would either have to just take the same (bad) thing, or go without.
In a free society, people own what is there's. They make take it upon themselves to convert their resources into capital goods (machines) to be used for ever higher production and the betterment of the worker. Likely, the company would need investors to raise capital, so those same "poor, down trodden, and oppressed" workers could purchase small shares, making them partners.
Private property is a fallacious term if used in the context of communism. If the group decides what is produced (they can't, by the way) without a price system, the worker will just have to get what he gets.
That is NOT FREEDOM!
@ Liberosia
His goal is simply to serve himself.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.