Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Watanabe formed Your Party as a splinter from the Liberal Democratic Party prior to the 2009 general election. His party ran on a platform of downsizing Japan's vast bureaucracy, but managed to win only five seats in the election, which was a resounding victory for the opposition Democratic Party of Japan. The party pushed forward into 2010 with a platform of deregulation and halving the corporate tax rate. His new party became popular among private investors and upper middle-class professionals.
Your Party won ten seats in the House of Councillors in the 2010 election, the third-strongest showing behind the LDP and DPJ. Watanabe planned to use his party's popularity to push for fiscal reforms, stating: "Our priority is anti-deflation legislation because Japan's economy faces the risk of a double-dip recession. We want to revise the BOJ law so the central bank and the government can agree on a goal of 2 percent inflation within two to three years." Watanabe was chosen as the Japanese public's most preferred candidate for prime minister in a July 2010 poll.
In January 2012, Watanabe announced that Your Party would join forces with Osaka governor Toru Hashimoto's political group Osaka Ishin-no-kai, and praised Hashimoto's economic reform efforts in Osaka. He announced that Your Party would sever ties with Hashimoto's Japan Restoration Party in May 2013 after Hashimoto made controversial comments regarding comfort women being a necessary part of World War II and suggesting that American servicemen use the Japanese sex industry to keep their urges under control.
Watanabe opposed the appointment of Haruhiko Kuroda as president of the Bank of Japan, saying that he would prefer to see a president come from a background other than the Ministry of Finance; he instead supported Heizo Takenaka for the position.
Watanabe gave the following answers to the questionnaire submitted by Mainichi to parlementarians in 2014:
in favor of the revision of the Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
in favor of the right of collective self-defense
against nuclear plants
no problem for visits of a Prime Minister to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine
no answer regarding the revision of the Murayama Statement
no answer regarding the revision of the Kono Statement
in favor of laws preventing hate speech
no answer regarding question whether Marine Corps Air Station Futenma is a burden for Okinawa
in favor of the Special Secrecy Law
in favor of teaching 'morality' in school
The above is info readily available on Yoshimi Watanabe.
Led by Yoshimi Watanabe, who split from the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the party was founded on August 8, 2009 after then-Prime Minister Taro Aso dissolved the lower house. One concept behind the party was to make the government more democratic, and to eliminate control of the government by non-elected members established in the bureaucracy. In this respect, Watanabe has repeatedly stated that his position is compatible with the Democratic Party of Japan.
Your Party advocated favorable views toward lower taxation, free enterprise, smaller government, and less regulation.
The party fielded 13 candidates in the August 2009 general elections. Five of those candidates were elected to the lower house. In the 2010 house of Councillors election, it gained 10 seats. It also made gains at the 2011 regional elections, and in the 2012 general election, where it increased its seats from eight in the lower house to eighteen.
Following an announcement by Prime Minister Shinzō Abe for an election to be held in December 2014, the party's 20 members voted on November 19, 2014 to disband on November 28, 2014. Falling support and disagreement over whether to side with the ruling coalition in the upcoming election were identified as reasons for the split.
Note: Nuclear power is opposed because the nuclear industry in Japan is heavily subsidized (corporate welfare) and is an example of crony capitalism. Any supporter of free market capitalism would take such a position.
Give the POTUS some credit for proposing something, anything on domestic policy that is certain to irk his base. Reuters:
President Barack Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees on Tuesday to build the first U.S. nuclear power plant in nearly three decades in a move designed to help advance climate legislation in Congress. The loan guarantee will go to help Southern Co. build two reactors at a plant in the state of Georgia. Even though weve not broken ground on a new nuclear power plant in thirty years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions, Obama said after touring a union education center in Lanham, Maryland. To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, well need to increase our supply of nuclear power. Its that simple, he said.
Yet how viable is Big Nuclear without the help of Big Government? An interesting analysis from Catos Jerry Taylor:
Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf, for instance, has calculated that, under current law, the levelized cost of nuclear power in the United States is 4.31 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). Coal-fired electricity, on the other hand, cost 3.53 cents per kWh and clean coal cost 3.55 cents. But even these nuclear estimates are almost certainly too low. Thats because Metcalf uses an overnight cost (construction costs minus financing costs) figure of $2,014 per installed kilowatt (kW) which is much too low. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) puts this cost at $2,475 per kW at present-although even this figure is suspicious because it relies on a worldwide average for nuclear power plant construction-including the grossly unreliable estimates from state-managed economies. The Standard & Poors overnight cost estimate of $4,000 is likely the most reliable because it is based on nuclear plant construction costs in economies where labor and material costs are very similar to those found in the United States. Industry analyst Jim Harding, who uses overnight cost figures similar to Standard & Poors, puts the levelized costs for new nuclear power generation at 12-15 cents per kWh right now.
Will conservatives who complain about government debt guarantees to Wall Street complain about guarantees to energy companies?
The above says it's true in Japan as well as in America.
Only for the PR and international community.
Hahaha. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/58/17/7d/58177d3101bd409a5c1f00020138316f.jpg
Muh Roads, Capitalanada
Vending machines kill an average of 13 people per year.
Next, the socialists will want to ban vending machines.
Say wat?? I'm gonna have to watch myself around them things.
It's mostly idiots who try shaking them to get their most desired snack.
Darwin Awards anyone?
I'll edit the RADIO Act to include a clause about presidential WFE editing, and after that I think I'll introduce the bill to the Board. We cool with that?
Depends on what the clause is, and what RADIO stands for. :P
Muh Roads
Yea!
I will support a bill to privatize the radio, but only that.
Presidential editing authority has not yet been discussed and slipping it into an entirely unrelated bill at the very last second undiscussed would lose my support for the bill.
Al Sharpton in a nutshell:
http://i.imgur.com/o30NNaP.jpg
Miencraft
I agree, actually - I've written and endorsed multifaceted legislation before, but slapping on an outright rider? I'm not sure I could support that.
Maybe we should see the proposed bill before passing judgement.
When I say WFE editing, I mean presidential control over which radio stations are linked in the WFE. I would not want to see a scenario where the president could pick and choose his favourite radio stations to put up.
I thought that you meant universal editing powers, which, of course, includes the flag.
No. That's far too broad a subject to be discussing at this time.
"Deregulation caused the banks to fall."
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/224/5/c/facedesk_gif_by_katetls-d684dcx.gif
Pevvania
Farage and his gang of ignorant hyper-nationalists is better?
*snort*
The idea that you could support a government that is ok with letting people die of preventable diseases (essentially allow death - dare I call it murder?) and/or lack the vital education they need to be successful in life just to avoid what most people don't consider "Theft" but rather "the necessary redistribution of funds to aid the collective health and education of a nation" is, to be frank, quite shocking.
For most people, Libertarian views require just a little too much doublethink on what "freedom" is to be anything but shocking :P
RAdio DenatIOnalisation Act
SECOND DRAFT
Section I
This Act hereby dissolves Libertatem Radio
Section II
The creation of an official or regional government-managed radio station is hereby prohibited
Section III
As per Article VII, Section I of the Constitution, this Act affirms the right of any nation to own or operate their own radio station
Section IV
Libertatem Radio is encouraged to be replaced by competing, privately run radio stations
Section V
The executive is encouraged to promote either a range of private radio stations through the World Factbook Entry, or promote none at all
Authored by Pev
LINK - http://www.nationstates.net/nation=pevvania/detail=factbook/id=381537
Is this good enough?
Too true. Coming to this conclusion is the result of unabashed ideological denialism and cherry-picking. I mean, if deregulation caused the Great Recession, why didn't it happen after the '86 Wall Street Crash? Or during the 1990 recession? Or during the 2001 recession? Why did it happen just when regulation had been massively increased under the corporatist Bush administration? But as we know, facts do not concern economic denialists.
That's not the way libertarians view things. As somebody who once lived in a caravan, I believe that the privatisation of the NHS would be desirable because
a) it would mean less government spending and lower taxes, thereby increasing economic growth, alleviating poverty and stimulating wages,
b) a competitive, market-based healthcare sector would mean generally lower prices and higher quality; healthcare would be more affordable for the poor than ever,
c) the state has been leaching off of private innovators and scientific discoveries in healthcare for decades and then passing it off as a wonder of government. Unshackling healthcare would mean more room to risk and to innovate,
d) privatisation does not have to be immediate. It can be done with respect to the poor. In fact, an Obamacare in Britain would probably be more desirable than the current NHS,
e) people should help people voluntarily, not through violence.
Same principles applies to education. Britain's education system was lifted from one of Europe's worst to the sixth-best in the world after marketisation and choice were brought to parents.
If you want to understand our policy proposals, you should understand our motivations. We do not just believe liberty is ethical. We believe it creates the most desirable outcomes for all. Libertarianism would actually be quite bad for some of the richest people, because they would no longer be able to leech off of politicians for monopoly rights and special favours. Competition would allow the poor to succeed while causing many super-companies to collapse.
Indeed, but surely you can understand the horrified shock of someone who does view things that way coming into contact with your views :P
I've never understood the Libertarian claim that deregulation would increase competition across the board, everywhere. It's impossible that all Libertarians are completely unaware of the concept of 'Barriers of Entry to a Market', but it's something Libertarians seem to think doesn't exist. To set up a business you have to have capital to do it. The more expensive the business, the more capital. That in itself as a barrier to entry. "But Bank loans!" I hear you say. Bank loans may allow small shop owners and small businesses to develop. However, these have a tendency to get overtaken by big businesses, and to create a big business, you need a LOT of capital. Either you already have this (in which case you are already 'rich') or you don't. If you don't, you go to a bank. However, you're a newcomer to the market and to the bank it will often not make sense to back a newcomer to the market, especially to 'expensive' markets (like Oil, Electricity or Water - where contracts are worth billions of dollars), as a newcomer will (almost) always be lacking vis-a-vis the experienced and much larger entities already present in that market - often they will lack technical expertise, cheap labour, experience or simply raw capital. End result: barriers to entry remain too large for poor people to become entrepreneurs, and eventually even small businesses cannot be established due to excessive competition from larger hyper-corporations.
De-regulation also opens the opportunity for limitless price fixing and a whole host of other exploitative techniques upon customers. Techniques that are especially effective when demand is high the good an absolute necessity - food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, healthcare, education. Some of those have exceptions where barriers to entry can be avoided (home schooling and growing your own food), others, don't (setting up a power or water company would be frighteningly expensive. A bank would have to be mad to afford that sum of money to a new company).
You've said that people would no longer be able to leach off of politicians for monopoly rights and you're right. With a government reduced to a minarchy/nonarchy the exceptions they wish would simply need to be organized with or purchased from another company, or simply wouldn't be present due to lack of governmental regulation. Failing that (and with sufficient capital), there's no good reason a company shouldn't turn to force - via a PMC - if they really really want something. After all, it's not like the government would really be stop them once they got to a certain size, is it?
I'm firmly convinced the Libertarian concept of Liberty is hopelessly divorced from the guarantees of what many people consider the essentials in their life (food, safety, shelter, health), without which they cannot hope to be free to do what they like. Now, that's not to say it's a bad concept of Liberty, - it has its merits - I just don't see it to be functional or beneficial to the majority of people.
PS - TG me any response you may come up with as I might not check this nation for a few days. You know how it is, I pop in, I pop out :P
Excellent, though I'm sad to see you took my joke suggestion seriously - the title is so unimaginative. Ah, oh well.
http://memeorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/im-back-baby-bender-.png
Muh Roads
so many changes to so many things. If someone could be kind enough to shoot me a brief summary of approximately the last two months of goings ons that would be greatly appreciated.
Hey, Lack, welcome back. I was just talking about you.
Actually, not really - I used the words "lack thereof" in a sentence I wrote a few minutes ago.
It is not uncommon that I am discussed by various heads of state, but such is the life for a man such as myself.
Anyway, there's not much to tell.
I'm still President, so that means I haven't gotten the region destroyed or anything like that. Pev's working on legislation that will make the timeframe for elections clear, as there is a bit of a Constitutional inconsistency right now.
In the meantime, he wrote an act that will turn the Libertatem Radio off and give the power of music playlists to the private sector, where it belongs.
We've got an all-RLP Board. That's a tad controversial, but on the bright side, our legislative branch is seldom delayed when it sets out to do something.
Let's see, what else...?
Burn our flag referendum now.
Speaking of the radio, may I have a suggestion? This ought to be one of my most favorite songs of all time. The lyrics are awesome, especially at the end. If you like rock, punk, folk music, and/or metal you will like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk_6kwZbNJs
COME AND TAKE IT!
oh how I've missed this
I missed you lack!
http://onmounthoreb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/American-flag-burning.jpg
^also take a very close look at the guy's shirt
So I haven't been on the internet all week, because direct tv missed my house, and rather than coming to put in internet they said: "Nah, you'll be good another week." Huh... First World Problems
Yaaay! Lack has returned!
Lack There Of
Time for a new ISP :p
Right-Winged Nation, Austex
Is the LP still active?
Lack's back! Praise the Lord!
Lack There Of
I have submitted the RADIO Act to the Board.
As the chief sponsor of the bill, I vote AYE.
I still think it's cute when I see "anarchists" that oppose capitalism and call for more government.
"Smash the state by growing government! Voluntary cooperation is slavery! No, it's not a state if we call it a federation!"
Remember, kids: the only left-anarchist is a voluntaryist.
Austex
http://www.lostrepublic.us/Graphics/Anarcho-Communist-Capitalist.jpg
Republic Of Minerva
Idk the sharpie on that guys stomach is really cool tbh.
Pevvania, Lack There Of, Muh Roads
😲all obey Dinglebear!
Always havin' muh back Amarican.
<3
👌👈
Oh yeah one of the highest police ratios so cool
So my college professor gave me an essay to write... What Law would you change or create. I just crated a nice neat paper on the flat income tax rate.
Post self-deleted by Right-Winged Nation.
created
I hate it when Max moves stuff around - now I have to turn my NS++ extension off until it plays nice with the site's design again.
Also, what does everyone think of the current WA proposal?
The WAR Act demands I vote against it on the grounds that international law infringes upon the sovereignty of individual nations - regardless of how agreeable we may find that law.
Though I'm tempted to vote for it because it would deny the Assembly the right to create or enforce legislation that hinders nuclear trade...
I believe that the free market is the greatest force for creating and distributing wealth that the world has known. Think of whats possible today that was unthinkable two decades ago. A young woman with an Internet connection in Bangalore, India can compete with anybody anywhere in the world. An entrepreneur with a start-up company in Beijing can take his business global. An NES professor in Moscow can collaborate with colleagues at Harvard or Stanford. Thats good for all of us, because when prosperity is created in India, thats a new market for our goods; when new ideas take hold in China, that pushes our businesses to innovate; when new connections are forged among people, all of us are enriched. Ultimately individuals must advance this cooperation, because the greatest resource of any nation in the 21st century is you. Its people; its young people especially. Barack Obama, 2009
AAAAAAAAAAAAH! Obama believes in trickle-down economics!!! Filthy neo-liberal Reaganaut!!!1
Muh Roads
I first heard about Barack Obama in middle school, my history teacher a staunch conservative loved him. I'm still confused about that one, I wonder if he still feels the same.
Mind you this was... like 10 to 11 years ago..
If it wasn't for Obummercare, Obama would probably rank higher than Bush on my list of ranked presidents. This doesn't mean I am glorifying the guy of course...
Obama gets the 35th position. Coolidge gets the first, and Nixon the last. Ef nixon
Frankly, he had a hypnotising effect on millions of supposedly rational people.
I agree. Obama is Bush+. It's funny, because introducing healthcare mandates here in Britain would probably be a very desirable option for us to transition away from socialised medicine
35 seems about right. I wouldn't call Nixon the worst, but he deserves a lot more hate than he gets from conservatives and libertarians. I've seen Fox News hosts praise and apologise for the Republican that abolished the gold standard, increased domestic spending by 70%, and helped create the regulatory state and affirmative action.
You actually place John Quincy Adams higher?
Anybody interested in joining this? You can be a Senator/Representative, political commentator, supreme court justice, and probably anything else approved by the OP.
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=333393&sid=a53357b7ec835aea09e5b47a64aaf6ff
I signed up for President. I hope I get approved.
Has anyone read Recarving Rushmore by Ivan Eland? It was written before Obama was elected. Forty president are ranked from 1-40 in rank and 0-20 score wise on Peace Prosperity and Liberty for a total of 0-60
Excellent Presidents
John Tyler
Grover Cleveland
Martin Van Buren
Rutherford B. Hayes
Good Presidents
Chester A. Arthur
Warren G. Harding
George Washington
Jimmy Caret
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Calvin Colldge
Average Presidents
William J. Clinton
John Quincy Adams
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore
Poor Presidents
Benjamin Harrison
Gerald R. Ford
Andrew Johnson
Herbert Hoover
Ulysses S. Grant
William Howard Taft
Theodore Roosevelt
John Adams
James Buchanan
Franklin Pierce
Bad Presidents
James Monroe
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln
Richard M. Nixon
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Lyndon B. Johnson
George H. W. Bush
Ronald Reagan
John F. Kennedy
George W. Bush
James K. Polk
William McKinnley
Harry S. Truman
Woodrow Wilson
>Jimmy Caret
Has anyone read Recarving Rushmore by Ivan Eland? It was written before Obama was elected. Forty president are ranked from 1-40 in rank and 0-20 score wise on Peace Prosperity and Liberty for a total of 0-60
Excellent Presidents
John Tyler
Grover Cleveland
Martin Van Buren
Rutherford B. Hayes
Good Presidents
Chester A. Arthur
Warren G. Harding
George Washington
Jimmy Carter
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Calvin Colldge
Average Presidents
William J. Clinton
John Quincy Adams
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore
Poor Presidents
Benjamin Harrison
Gerald R. Ford
Andrew Johnson
Herbert Hoover
Ulysses S. Grant
William Howard Taft
Theodore Roosevelt
John Adams
James Buchanan
Franklin Pierce
Bad Presidents
James Monroe
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln
Richard M. Nixon
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Lyndon B. Johnson
George H. W. Bush
Ronald Reagan
John F. Kennedy
George W. Bush
James K. Polk
William McKinnley
Harry S. Truman
Woodrow Wilson
Ok, fixed it!
Uh, I would not consider Reagan or Jefferson bad presidents.
LOL, so I got an issue that there are rainbows in my nation and that there is gold at the end but there are leprechauns. I picked the option of getting gold for leprechauns in exchange for giving them a liter of alcohol.
You make me laugh funny man.
Also, wouldn't consider Theodore Roosevelt a "poor president"
AND CARTER A GOOD PRESIDENT??????????????
Scores revealed
Excellent 51-60 (17-20)
Good 42-51 (14-17)
Average 36-42 (12-14)
Poor 24-36 (8-12)
Bad 0-24 (0-8)
Ronald Reagan
Peace 2
Prosperity 5
Liberty 3
Total 10
Thomas Jefferson
Peace 12
Prosperity 7
Liberty 2
Total 21
Theodore Roosevelt
Peace 11
Prosperity 10
Liberty 8
Total 29
Jimmy Carter
Peace 17
Prosperity 15
Liberty 14
Total 46
I don't agree with these scores
You're funny. I like you.
Jimmy Carter a good president :D
Thanks for the laugh.
Who is this guy? We need him to do a routine in our region's comedy club, stat!
So, Republicans in the Senate get called traitors who are breaking the law for signing a letter to Iran. But Obama is "just doing his job" when he violates the law or craps on the Constitution. Riiiiight.
Obama is God, don't you know that? He can order an executive order whenever he feels like it and we are just suppose to fall in line. The Republicans are just evil people, don't trust them.
that is literally what the purpose of an executive order is
He is using executive orders to go against the constitution
My fellow Libertatemites,
I'd like to open with a story.
Imagine this: A man has been lost in the desert for days. He's exhausted, his canteen is almost empty, but perhaps more importantly, he's starving - you can hear his stomach growling as he walks in pursuit of civilization. Finally, he stops walking and kneels down in the sand - he then looks up at the sky and yells, "God, if you're really up there, please help me!"
All of a sudden, he sees half of a sub sandwich, encased in plastic wrap, on the ground in front of him. He stares at it longingly and hungrily, but restrains himself from picking it up. Instead, the man casts it aside and turns his attention back to the sky. At this, a booming voice from above incredulously demands, "What are you doing? I created that hoagie just for you! What compels you to deny my help?"
The man replies, "Well, I'm holding out for a hero."
Many of us can, at times, be just like the man in that story; I know that in times of adversity, I have been tempted to seek a perfect solution to my problems rather than recognizing my opportunities for what they are. Indeed, with our population declining, our military stagnant, and our alliances in need of review, it is of the utmost importance that we consider what opportunities we have at our disposal, rather than complaining about - or worse, ignoring - our problems. We have proven time and time again that we are a region of problem-solvers, and I would like to announce that I have a solution in mind for this ordeal.
I am in the process of writing the third REAGAN Treaty - or, as I would like to call it, the Reiteration of Entente between Allied Governments, Armies, and Nations Treaty - and believe that its intended contents may be the key to our improvement.
The Treaty
There are two REAGAN Treaties already, in fact; Chairman Pevvania was the author of the first, and I am the author of the second - the latter is the one currently in effect.
The first treaty established the REAGAN Treaty Organization, or Reato, as a coalition intended to work in tandem with the now-defunct IDA against communist aggressors. The second treaty expanded upon the first, modifying the organizational structure and changing the organization's mission to the promotion of pan-libertarianism against the forces of all totalitarian aggressors. Once finished, I hope that the third treaty will accomplish the following:
- The decentralization of the organization itself, and dissolution of the Security Council; interregional laws between signatory regions can only be enforced on a contractual basis (that is to say, mutual agreement in the form of other treaties) rather than by the mandate of a majority.
- The elimination of citizenship barriers between the signatory regions; for instance, a citizen-in-good-standing of one signatory region would be able to attain citizenship in another more easily upon moving (or sending a puppet) there, to a degree determined on a regional basis.
- Improved collaboration between individual armies; in short, the military leader(s) of one signatory region can directly recruit forces from another as long as they have permission from their counterparts in that region, and could include the armies of non-signatory regions in their operations without penalty. (This would allow for the creation of, or membership in, other organizations.)
- Defense of free association; any region that signs the treaty and agrees to obey its provisions will be considered a signatory region, and will no longer be considered a signatory region if they disobey the provisions. Simple as that.
Granted, these objectives are not set in stone - if you have any advice for what to include in the finished treaty, do share.
The War
Reading what I intend to accomplish, you may be wondering what will happen to REATO if we sign this treaty.
The short answer is nothing will happen to it - we're still keeping the region so that our enemies don't get their grimy hands on it, we're still calling signatory-led successes "REATO victories", and our aim - to roll back the destructive influence of authoritarianism and secure the continued existence of freedom and liberty on NationStates - is still the same. The big difference here is that we simply won't be coordinating our efforts through that region in particular; Reato will simply be less a headquarters and more a mascot for the organized alliances between the signatory regions. In other words, nothing will happen to it, primarily because we simply won't be using it for anything.
Speaking of our enemies, the war front has been oddly quiet in recent days. It seems my observation was correct - the Fleet attacks libertarian regions more out of spite for our war against them, rather than out of any hatred for freedom. What we do with that information, of course, is up to us - we could decide to accept the peace and focus on other targets, we could interrupt the ceasefire with another war against them, or we could even invite them on a campaign against fascist regions. We have no shortage of opportunities here, whether of war or peace, so I encourage you all to discuss them.
The People
Our population, and that of our allies, is another matter.
Until recently we were able to curb our loss of numbers with the NS++ recruiting tool - however, as of a few days ago, it appears to be unresponsive. That is why I have devised a short-term solution in the form of a proposed clause to the treaty: the loosened citizenship restrictions.
Imagine, if you will, that Libertatem and the IRU were to sign a finished third REAGAN Treaty and come to an accord on opening their borders to one another (after carefully examining their citizenship records, of course). Citizens of either region could more easily become citizens in the other, which would result in a slight population and activity boost in both regions - and offer a greater degree of political diversity to one another, to boot. For example, the supposed monotony our party politics have become could come to an end, just like that, as nations hailing from the IRU throw their hats in the ring.
Granted, this isn't a perfect solution, but I think it is worth considering regardless. Passing up a chance to revitalize our organization and our population would be like, well, discarding the sandwich in the story I opened with. If there's a lesson here, it's that we shouldn't hold out for a hero (whether as in the sandwich or the person). If anything, we can and should apply our determination, resolve, and tenacity to all that plagues us. We have a history of doing so - it's one of the things that makes us great. Even the most stalwart bastions of freedom are not immune to destruction, and it is our calling to repair them.
The most heroic thing you can do is to answer the call.
Thank you, and God bless.
Capitalanada
Don't everyone reply at once
Here are some good news, you have my support Mr. President !
Actually, that's a pretty good solution CI. I support it thusfar!
These are some solid, well-considered changes you're proposing, Mr. President. I support these ideas. And your citizenship proposal is a very novel idea. Opening our borders to like-minded friends has the potential to do great things for the region and for liberty.
I haven't really read much of that, because I really can't stand to look at this site without NS++, but I'd just like to say that I've seen some good things in there.
In that case, I'll see what I can come up with.
Anyway, while I turn the sorry outline I've prepared so far into a more formal-looking treaty, what news have we of the Board vote on the RADIO Act?
Unconstitutional or not, it's hypocritical of us to tell Iran they can't have something when we do. Republicans should allow Obama to hash out a deal that appeals to both sides. If republicans call that unconstitutional and going behind america's back, then maybe they shouldn't invite Netenyahu to speak to Congress without telling Obama.
Also good treaty CI, I had no idea Reagan Treaty II existed, but the third looks great nonetheless.
Speaking of which, I'm still in the process of writing the third treaty - I've completed the first few sections and am working on the last couple. Anyway, the first two REAGAN Treaties can be found in the REATO Custodian's factbooks.
Fun fact: All three may share the same acronym, but each has a vastly different title comprising that acronym.
This is particularly troubling to me. I raised this during your election, you are the executive of the IRU and Libertatem, which is a split allegiance regardless but now you want to amend the citizenship process specifically to allow more citizens of the IRU into the region to run for politically office. Presumably, run for political office to support you and your administration as the election draws nearer. I will object to this treaty and vote against it because of your proposition to join the Communists in battle. But, if that were not enough, you are attempting to flood the electorate with personal supporters that know nothing of the region.
Mr. President, I have been an ally and I am your Chief of Staff. But, this is a proposal that I cannot get behind. That I will never get behind. The premise is that of surrender and submission, that and political manipulation of our laws. This proposal must pass the Board, I can guarantee that unless you make revisions to the entire premise, it will not.
I will not pass it either.
Listen to the public opinion you two, you've been elected for that.
So you are fine with a president CHANGING THE LAWS OF THE REGION to allow more of his uneducated supporters flood the electorate and gain public office? He literally said that this was the sole purpose of allowing IRU to get in without normal citizenship screenings. Just because you support him politically, does not excuse an attempted abuse of power.
He is the president. He was elected to uphold the laws of the region, not change them to benefit his re-election.
Let's not even mention the constitutionally illegal proposition of joining the RED FLEET in battle.
Do not tell me my job. My job is to uphold this region, its values, and its laws, not to let the president cheat this region on an executively enforced order because two people said that they liked what it look like without reading it. "I haven't really read much of that"
As a Boardmember, I will vote against this. ANy members of the IRU that want to join our region can do so privately and with the fullest extent of the FRAUD requirements like everyone else.
As the Attorney General, I will oppose this due to its blatant violation of Article VIII of the Constitution, which had not yet been repealed.
As the President's Chief of Staff, I advise against this because it is a blatant and unfounded abuse of his elected power. He was elected to uphold our laws, not manipulate and override them.
Amen!
Obviously, every citizen of this is region is for this proposal. Yeah. Right.
That's also why I'd like to announce I'm not running for a second term. I would save this announcement for later, but considering how frequently you warn me about how likely I am to lose the next election, I think I'd better speak up now.
I'm not so worried about the split allegiances - the people of the IRU and Libertatem are fast friends, after all - as I am about continuing to juggle two executive positions. If it's all the same to you, when my term is over, I'd prefer that this region is run by a better nation than I... or, at the very least, a less busy nation.
Relax, it was just an idea. Regardless of what we decide to do - most likely not that, judging by your reaction - that won't be included in the treaty.
Are you kidding? I gush about this region regularly, and many of the political process over there are based on our very own here. Give them some credit - they'll know a lot about how things work when they get here.
Don't call them uneducated - you didn't even take the time to know them before your IRU puppet CTE'd. Despite this, I'm still willing to give you a chance to enter the IRU's electorate - the least you could do is make peace with the idea of it working the other way around.
There you go again. Never did I say, or even insinuate, that this was the sole purpose of the treaty - I gave that as an example of what we could do if we were to loosen restrictions between signatory regions, which I hope would include both the IRU and Libertatem.
The only law I'm rewriting is an interregional treaty - one, might I add, that I have already revised in the first place. I do so not for my benefit, but for that of all REAGAN signatories in the present and future.
I think someone does need to tell you your job. Note that you don't need to wait on the people hand and foot, but neither should you go on an individualistic crusade without the consent of your peers - take it from someone who's done so before.
As foreign dignitaries, they would have to wait for 30 days instead of 10 - this barrier is not in the spirit of alliance, not to mention how many complaints I've heard about that clause. I even proposed legislation to change it during my time on the Board, but too many fellow members were inactive for the measure to pass.
As a Board member, your responsibility is to represent the people in our legislative process, same as my job is to do the same in the executive process. That is what you were elected to do - you frequently warn me of this, but I insist you follow your own advice here.
This treaty does not preclude our fight in the War on Communism, nor - once passed - would it conflict with the passages therein. I object to your assertion that the Third REAGAN Treaty would be unconstitutional.
As the Attorney-General, your responsibility is to interpret our laws fairly. I chose you for the position because I know that it's your strong suit - therefore, I encourage you, in particular, to make suggestions regarding the rough draft of the Treaty, rather than rejecting it out of hand.
As the President's Chief of Staff, you're treading on thin ice. You could at least have warned me about your tirade via telegram, or asked me what I was doing before you decided I was trying to gain supporters in an election I won't be running in.
Anyway, how's voting on the RADIO Act coming along?
Not uneducated in general, uneducated about Libertatem, its laws, and its traditions. Thus, my advocating for them to become citizens the standard way on a private level.
Being in the Board does not take away my individuality or freedom of expression.
They would be perfectly within their rights to ask the Board to waive the waiting period on that account, but I stand by the foreign dignitary precept that I wrote when I originally wrote FRAUD.
I explicitly said in my original statement that I reject the premise and would reject the Treaty if the premise did not change. Not the Treaty outright.
And as your Chief of Staff, I reiterate what I told you minutes after performed your Oath of Office. If I disagree with something that you have to say, I will inform you thusly. I will not be a Yes Man, and I have not been.
On the other issue, if you chose not to run again, that's on you. But as a member of the opposition party, how am I supposed to feel when an incumbent President proposes an un-elected order to specifically change the citizenship process to allow members of a region that you have sole command over to "throw their hats in the ring"?
I still reject the premise of the changes to the War. I still am not happy about the Citizenship concept. Unless major changes are made, I will still likely vote against it.
It still hasn't started. We have not received an amended form by the Chairman. I'm sure you remember that we rejected the original copy as we all had some sort of objection.
That depends on whether the standard way demands they wait ten days or thirty.
You say major changes need to be made. Like what? Do enlighten me.
What you feel is up to you - what's important is how you react to your circumstances. Trust, but verify.
You could have privately informed me of your concerns, and I would have been more receptive. But, since you find so much fault with my proposal that you could not bear to hold your tongue, I trust you would not mind providing a point-by-point counter-proposal?
That is to say, what should we do instead? What are your thoughts on the state of our internal, foreign, and military affairs? What can we do to increase activity in the various facets of our region?
Recently, I chose to respond to Church Attendances Reaches New Low, Warns Priests. I choose the fund spirituality option as opposed to mandating church attendance. A happy side effect was all my business subsidization was brought down to zero when it went into effect. That is a good thing as I like free market laissez-faire capitalism, not crony capitalism. I didn't see a spirituality section on the spending though.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.