Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

English Socialist Ingsoc wrote:Totalitarian Collectivist with a strong government acting as a head for the Collective.

I like a strong, central government. I like you.

Rotgeheim wrote:I like a strong, central government. I like you.

You read the book 1984?

English Socialist Ingsoc wrote:You read the book 1984?

I haven't. Have you read The Moscow Option?

The Amarican Empire wrote:Tsar would kill me for this but I looked at The Amarican Nazi Partys website and it had a ok platform minus the racism and sexism.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" :-\

Rotgeheim wrote:I haven't. Have you read The Moscow Option?

Nope.

If you didn't live in the U.S., where would you wish to live?

Rotgeheim wrote:If you didn't live in the U.S., where would you wish to live?

North Korea or Russia

Humpheria wrote:Speaking of which, I have some news.

Due to the inactivity of the State Department, which is [B]absolutely NO fault[/B] of Manager Hallo, a change must be made. Effective 12:00 AM EST, Lack There Of shall be named the new Manager of State. I expect Hallo to be very angry, and I cannot blame him. But we all have to do what is good for the region, and Lack is active, experienced, and enthusiastic enough to give this job a much needed revitalization. I will consider Hallo's re-appointment once band has concluded.

I hope to serve this office, once again, in an honorable and productive manner and am honored to be considered a candidate for such a high ranking position within regional government. A more detailed agenda and a fact-book can be expected in the near future. Thank you Libertatem and good night.

Lack There Of wrote:You heard it here first folks, Muh has gone red

*sarcastic caption*

nope, we cant even tell youre gone

"Humpheria: Pev 2.0"

Muh Roads wrote:If your only two choices were An-com or fascist, which would you choose?

An-com. Well, presuming it's a voluntaryist an-com. They are our allies. The so-called "libertarian socialists" who destroy private property and talk about anarchy while in fact just they want to create a totalitarian state, our enemies of ours, and we should be wary of them.

Decisive day for the UK's future. I've bet 40$ that the Scottish will refuse their independence at 57%.

Pevvania wrote:An-com. Well, presuming it's a voluntaryist an-com. They are our allies. The so-called "libertarian socialists" who destroy private property and talk about anarchy while in fact just they want to create a totalitarian state, our enemies of ours, and we should be wary of them.

THANK YOU!

Audit the Fed has passed through the House by an overwhelming 3-1 majority!

Unfortunately, though, it's unlikely to reach the Senate this year, since Harry Reid has not allowed the vote to go forward before, even though he's been talking about wanting to audit the Fed nearly his whole career.

I am officially creating the United Pev Party.

The Liberty State wrote:I am officially creating the United Pev Party.

The Amarican Empire wrote:I Officially form the Libertatem Nazi Party o wait I should just join the RLP Tyranny. Joking Im only joking please dont kill me humpy.

Congrats, bros.

INGSOC no here it'd be called...

LIBSOC

POTROL*, you should add this as Book of the Month: http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=302928

It seems that one of the imperialists wasn't too happy that we have a more competent defense force than his region. How sad. Still a funny read, though.

*President of the Republic of Libertatem

Post self-deleted by Ankha.

The Liberty State wrote:I am officially creating the United Pev Party.

I'm flattered. What does it stand for?

Pevvania wrote:POTROL*, you should add this as Book of the Month: http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=302928

It seems that one of the imperialists wasn't too happy that we have a more competent defense force than his region. How sad. Still a funny read, though.

*President of the Republic of Libertatem

We have a competent force?

Joking. I'm with him though. Freedom to practice your preferred ideology. ON A GAME!

All your parties are too free. You honestly need a Branch of the Party here.

"LIBSOC"

Libertatem Socialist Party

The Time Alliance wrote:We have a competent force?

Joking. I'm with him though. Freedom to practice your preferred ideology. ON A GAME!

Sure, everyone should have the freedom to bully and destroy other regions, and anyone who dares to resist is evil.

Rotgeheim wrote:If you didn't live in the U.S., where would you wish to live?

Germany or Italy.

Pevvania wrote:Sure, everyone should have the freedom to bully and destroy other regions, and anyone who dares to resist is evil.

And racist

I need one more "yea" vote from the board, and I will write legislation pertaining to board transparency.

Rotgeheim wrote:If you didn't live in the U.S., where would you wish to live?

Somalia

Muh Roads wrote:Not speaking on behalf of the board, I'd like to recommend the impeachment and immediate replacement of our dear friend Godisdead from the board.

He is completely inactive and has not participated of a single one of the boards proposals or brainstorming.

Muh Roads wrote:Somalia

Dat flag tho

Muh Roads wrote:I need one more "yea" vote from the board, and I will write legislation pertaining to board transparency.

Well, you've got one more yea from the House.

Lack There Of wrote:Dat flag tho

It seems the three of us tend to follow the same Facebook pages

Muh Roads wrote:I need one more "yea" vote from the board, and I will write legislation pertaining to board transparency.

For the sake of transparency, I officially announce that I am...abstaining.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:For the sake of transparency, I officially announce that I am...abstaining.

Spineless no-gender.

Humpheria wrote:Spineless no-gender.

I take offense to that last one; I am one hundred percent mmmale.

Anyway, good luck with the last yea vote, fellas.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Nay

You're not on the Board anymore, Amar. Muh is in Seat Five, remember?

Just giving my opinion I'm retired.

I have been a strong advocate for Board transparency since before my presidency. I don't even think passing a law would be necessary. The Board just needs to debate and vote in public, like on a special section of the forums.

Adding on that, if legislation does not succeed in the Board, I will try passing something through the House.

Pevvania wrote:Adding on that, if legislation does not succeed in the Board, I will try passing something through the House.

I wanted a law stating weekly reports on the RMB were mandatory by an appointed person or the chairman. That paves the way for future boards.

Pevvania wrote:I have been a strong advocate for Board transparency since before my presidency. I don't even think passing a law would be necessary. The Board just needs to debate and vote in public, like on a special section of the forums.

Pevvania wrote:I have been a strong advocate for Board transparency since before my presidency. I don't even think passing a law would be necessary. The Board just needs to debate and vote in public, like on a special section of the forums.

I wanted to do something similar, but few board participants are willing to use a third party site. Ankha even volunteered to code a seamless chatroom.

Muh Roads wrote:Not speaking on behalf of the board, I'd like to recommend the impeachment and immediate replacement of our dear friend Godisdead from the board.

He is completely inactive and has not participated of a single one of the boards proposals or brainstorming.

Please?

Seriously, we need to do stuff. Board stuff. House members I'm counting on you.

Muh Roads wrote:Please?

Seriously, we need to do stuff. Board stuff. House members I'm counting on you.

I'll support a removal of Godisdead.

Miencraft wrote:I'll support a removal of Godisdead.

I second that.

Post self-deleted by The Liberty State.

All hail Pevvania, the true leader of the world.

Pevvania Akbar

#1 in the region for highest tax rate at 96%.

It feels good.

Rotgeheim wrote:#1 in the region for highest tax rate at 96%.

It feels good.

You should be ashamed.

A poll will be made for GID 's impeachment.

Humpheria wrote:A poll has been made for GID 's impeachment.

Why is there an abstain option? Those that want to abstain would just not vote.

Miencraft wrote:Why is there an abstain option? Those that want to abstain would just not vote.

Common courtesy.

Rotgeheim wrote:#1 in the region for highest tax rate at 96%.

It feels good.

You pig.

Pevvania wrote:I have been a strong advocate for Board transparency since before my presidency. I don't even think passing a law would be necessary. The Board just needs to debate and vote in public, like on a special section of the forums.

Indeed. Board business is a matter of principle, not coercion; it should be the common courtesy of every Board member to publicly announce their votes, not their compulsory duty.

As a result, I change my abstention to a nay vote. I firmly believe the entitlement of our elected officials to private decisions is greater than the public's entitlement to answers; that said, I encourage my fellow Board members to make their activities public in order to uphold the rights and interests of Board and House alike.

Okay, so my internet has been down and I have finally gotten to a computer today. We are voting on the impeachment of Godisdead? Someone bring me to speed

Also, while I do not have the authority to vote on GID's impeachment, the proposal has my support.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Okay, so my internet has been down and I have finally gotten to a computer today. We are voting on the impeachment of Godisdead? Someone bring me to speed

GID's inactive, so we're holding a vote for impeachment.

Also, the Board is discussing the creation of legislation mandating Board transparency. I currently do not support it, despite my interest in making the affairs of the Board more public, as I am opposed to compulsion.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:GID's inactive, so we're holding a vote for impeachment.

Also, the Board is discussing the creation of legislation mandating Board transparency. I currently do not support it, despite my interest in making the affairs of the Board more public, as I am opposed to compulsion.

Ah, good. I remember being involved in the legislation of board transparency.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:GID's inactive, so we're holding a vote for impeachment.

Also, the Board is discussing the creation of legislation mandating Board transparency. I currently do not support it, despite my interest in making the affairs of the Board more public, as I am opposed to compulsion.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:GID's inactive, so we're holding a vote for impeachment.

Also, the Board is discussing the creation of legislation mandating Board transparency. I currently do not support it, despite my interest in making the affairs of the Board more public, as I am opposed to compulsion.

I am do support it either, we can be public without legislation.

Also, if John Steinbeck were alive, I would punch him in the face.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Indeed. Board business is a matter of principle, not coercion; it should be the common courtesy of every Board member to publicly announce their votes, not their compulsory duty.

As a result, I change my abstention to a nay vote. I firmly believe the entitlement of our elected officials to private decisions is greater than the public's entitlement to answers; that said, I encourage my fellow Board members to make their activities public in order to uphold the rights and interests of Board and House alike.

I understand and respect your opinion.

That said, my thought process on the matter is that board membership is a position you volunteer for. Your elected by the people to help make the tough decisions, and those people deserve to see what your position on those decisions are. Not only will this help create a better board, whereas the people can see the way you vote, it will also give them a sense of security knowing their board is actually active and doing what it is supposed to do. Yes, it might make you a better politician to announce your stance when no rule is required to do so, but if a law is in place that makes it compulsory then your actual actions on the board will stand out more than the "oh, he's an honest politician because he announces what he does" factor.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I am do support it either, we can be public without legislation.

So your switching your vote to nay on the weekly report?

Post self-deleted by The Liberty State.

Muh Roads wrote:I understand and respect your opinion.

That said, my thought process on the matter is that board membership is a position you volunteer for. Your elected by the people to help make the tough decisions, and those people deserve to see what your position on those decisions are. Not only will this help create a better board, whereas the people can see the way you vote, it will also give them a sense of security knowing their board is actually active and doing what it is supposed to do. Yes, it might make you a better politician to announce your stance when no rule is required to do so, but if a law is in place that makes it compulsory then your actual actions on the board will stand out more than the "oh, he's an honest politician because he announces what he does" factor.

^^^^^

I am leaning this way

Also, on the Godisdead impeachment hearing, here is my humble opinion:

I was a member of a small political app of about 30 people. We had a regional government that strongly resembled the US Government. It was strong and active. Within a month, we dropped 5 active members. The next month we lost 5 more and then finally after 6 months it came down to 5 fairly active members. 3 others that were sporadic. Our government fell apart because no legislation was passing and nobody wants to be in an inactive government. Now, being through all this makes me very strongly against inactive members of government. It turns people away. I rest my case, and I apologize if that was too long

Godless Munky (Referring to Shermaniya): No, he's a Liberatem/Reato agent seeking to infiltrate, undermine, and betray leftist regions.

It's funny how Das Kommune criticizes anyone who they hate. I don't think they actually know my goals on Nationstates.

The Commune is a weird region.

The Amarican Empire wrote:The Commune is a weird region.

Agreed

Muh Roads wrote:I understand and respect your opinion.

That said, my thought process on the matter is that board membership is a position you volunteer for. Your elected by the people to help make the tough decisions, and those people deserve to see what your position on those decisions are. Not only will this help create a better board, whereas the people can see the way you vote, it will also give them a sense of security knowing their board is actually active and doing what it is supposed to do. Yes, it might make you a better politician to announce your stance when no rule is required to do so, but if a law is in place that makes it compulsory then your actual actions on the board will stand out more than the "oh, he's an honest politician because he announces what he does" factor.

I understand and respect your opinion as well.

My disagreement with your stance is threefold:

1. The responsibility of representing the people must additionally come with the privilege of discernment; potential Board members must have a reason to volunteer. Forcing these elected volunteers to adhere to a code of conduct by mandating that their votes be placed under public scrutiny may result in a lack of interest - stagnation. Who, after all, would willingly fill a position with many tasks, few perks, and constant demands from the populace?

2. Transparency is good in moderation, but the Board must not become any more of a popularity contest than it is already. The accomplishments of the Board should be a major consideration during election season, but not in the midst of lawmaking; compulsory transparency would result in the public's instant awareness of each legislator's stance on proposed legislation, which carries a number of risks. What if one or more of the elected officials votes against a popular piece of legislation? At the very least they could be bullied into changing their vote, and at worst a number of House members would call for their impeachment over a light and transient cause. The Board is where heatedly controversial bills come to cool, and public input is significant enough a consideration without forcing all Board debates into the open.

3. We have the capacity to promote the public interest without forcing a constraint upon ourselves. This debate on Board transparency is public, for example, because we in the Board possess the requisite patience, tact, and humility to discuss this matter in an open forum. It is our privilege to decide whether or not our decisions are widely publicized, and our duty to answer the inquiries of the region's people as best we can. Those who voted for us trust us to disclose information pertaining to our affairs wisely and with great discernment, and I feel we can fulfill this without making the full disclosure of Board business mandatory.

I trust in the judgment of my fellow Board members, and it is for this reason that I will oppose any attempt that pits this judgment against constant, unyielding pressure from the masses. As those who voted for me entrusted me with the responsibilities of this office, so too will I trust them with the knowledge that I will serve them by conscious choice, and not by mandate.

I have began an all so EEEEVIL war against Das Kommune! MWAHAHAHAH!

I need to rip someones throat out. I was on the phone with Apple for 2 hours, then verizon for another 2 trying to get IOS8 when it wasnt working, and they just blame each other! AGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Ankha wrote:I need to rip someones throat out. I was on the phone with Apple for 2 hours, then verizon for another 2 trying to get IOS8 when it wasnt working, and they just blame each other! AGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Offer neither company your patronage in the future.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Offer neither company your patronage in the future.

I love you....for a second that made me feel better. Then I remembered I dont have that choice.

I respect anyone who is fluent in multiple languages so much.

In other news, Scotland's independence referendum has failed by a vote of 54.2% to 45.8%; Scotland will remain in the UK.

The sun never sets on the British empire

The Silver Chair wrote:In other news, Scotland's independence referendum has failed by a vote of 54.2% to 45.8%; Scotland will remain in the UK.

"Better Together!"

The Silver Chair wrote:In other news, Scotland's independence referendum has failed by a vote of 54.2% to 45.8%; Scotland will remain in the UK.

http://youtu.be/8iusUq4-f5U

Liberosia wrote:The sun never sets on the British empire

Some day, some day

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I understand and respect your opinion as well.

My disagreement with your stance is threefold:

1. The responsibility of representing the people must additionally come with the privilege of discernment; potential Board members must have a reason to volunteer. Forcing these elected volunteers to adhere to a code of conduct by mandating that their votes be placed under public scrutiny may result in a lack of interest - stagnation. Who, after all, would willingly fill a position with many tasks, few perks, and constant demands from the populace?

2. Transparency is good in moderation, but the Board must not become any more of a popularity contest than it is already. The accomplishments of the Board should be a major consideration during election season, but not in the midst of lawmaking; compulsory transparency would result in the public's instant awareness of each legislator's stance on proposed legislation, which carries a number of risks. What if one or more of the elected officials votes against a popular piece of legislation? At the very least they could be bullied into changing their vote, and at worst a number of House members would call for their impeachment over a light and transient cause. The Board is where heatedly controversial bills come to cool, and public input is significant enough a consideration without forcing all Board debates into the open.

3. We have the capacity to promote the public interest without forcing a constraint upon ourselves. This debate on Board transparency is public, for example, because we in the Board possess the requisite patience, tact, and humility to discuss this matter in an open forum. It is our privilege to decide whether or not our decisions are widely publicized, and our duty to answer the inquiries of the region's people as best we can. Those who voted for us trust us to disclose information pertaining to our affairs wisely and with great discernment, and I feel we can fulfill this without making the full disclosure of Board business mandatory.

I trust in the judgment of my fellow Board members, and it is for this reason that I will oppose any attempt that pits this judgment against constant, unyielding pressure from the masses. As those who voted for me entrusted me with the responsibilities of this office, so too will I trust them with the knowledge that I will serve them by conscious choice, and not by mandate.

^^^^^

Now I am torn

http://www.theonion.com/articles/david-cameron-to-scottish-people-ill-kill-myself-i,36941/

Good thing the referendum lost.

Shermaniya wrote:http://www.theonion.com/articles/david-cameron-to-scottish-people-ill-kill-myself-i,36941/

Good thing the referendum lost.

That is fake

Atomic Fest wrote:That is fake

I know, it was a joke.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I understand and respect your opinion as well.

My disagreement with your stance is threefold:

1. The responsibility of representing the people must additionally come with the privilege of discernment; potential Board members must have a reason to volunteer. Forcing these elected volunteers to adhere to a code of conduct by mandating that their votes be placed under public scrutiny may result in a lack of interest - stagnation. Who, after all, would willingly fill a position with many tasks, few perks, and constant demands from the populace?

2. Transparency is good in moderation, but the Board must not become any more of a popularity contest than it is already. The accomplishments of the Board should be a major consideration during election season, but not in the midst of lawmaking; compulsory transparency would result in the public's instant awareness of each legislator's stance on proposed legislation, which carries a number of risks. What if one or more of the elected officials votes against a popular piece of legislation? At the very least they could be bullied into changing their vote, and at worst a number of House members would call for their impeachment over a light and transient cause. The Board is where heatedly controversial bills come to cool, and public input is significant enough a consideration without forcing all Board debates into the open.

3. We have the capacity to promote the public interest without forcing a constraint upon ourselves. This debate on Board transparency is public, for example, because we in the Board possess the requisite patience, tact, and humility to discuss this matter in an open forum. It is our privilege to decide whether or not our decisions are widely publicized, and our duty to answer the inquiries of the region's people as best we can. Those who voted for us trust us to disclose information pertaining to our affairs wisely and with great discernment, and I feel we can fulfill this without making the full disclosure of Board business mandatory.

I trust in the judgment of my fellow Board members, and it is for this reason that I will oppose any attempt that pits this judgment against constant, unyielding pressure from the masses. As those who voted for me entrusted me with the responsibilities of this office, so too will I trust them with the knowledge that I will serve them by conscious choice, and not by mandate.

I disagree with your view. The Board, fundamentally, is supposed to act in the interests of the public, so it therefore should come under its scrutiny. How can it perform such a duty effectively and democratically when Board votes and debates are held almost in secret? It is the responsibility of our public representatives not to appeal to Board member's privilege in justifying their refusal to publish their records. The Board is not some secretive society borne of a cadre of elitists and the power-connected, removed from the rest of the region they should be serving. But it very well could become such a body in the absence of proper accountability and transparency. Your fears that simply moving the votes and debates of the Board to a forum more accessible to the public would impose upon the rights of the Board members are both misplaced and irrational - our politicians work for us, and they should be aware of any conditions and responsibilities they must fulfill before taking the job. If you believe that politicians have the right to keep their records in secret, then I suppose elections should still be done in secret, with the political positions of each candidate also remaining concealed?

There is another danger of leaving the Board's debates in secret: it grants a worrying amount of power to the Chairman. The way the telegram system works means that the Chairman of the Board could record each vote individually, which presents the danger that he or she could falsify the results of a vote on legislation in order to arbitrarily push their political agenda without any democratic oversight whatsoever. Individual Board members may not personally consult with each other on Board votes, meaning that this lack of accountability could lead to the Chairman becoming an effective dictator of the region.

I am very strongly in favour of bringing accountability, oversight and transparency to the Board. In any republic there must be checks and balances to assure that each corridor of power is acting within the law. Our President, our Managers, our elections, and our House all act within the view of the public and the rule of law - why not the Board? We must double down on our demand for much-needed accountability from the politicians, and push for this today.

Atomic Fest wrote:That is fake

What are you talking about? The Onion is America's finest news source.

Pevvania wrote: The way the telegram system works means that the Chairman of the Board could record each vote individually, which presents the danger that he or she could falsify the results of a vote on legislation in order to arbitrarily push their political agenda without any democratic oversight whatsoever. Individual Board members may not personally consult with each other on Board votes, meaning that this lack of accountability could lead to the Chairman becoming an effective dictator of the region.

Love you too, Pev.

Pevvania wrote:I disagree with your view. The Board, fundamentally, is supposed to act in the interests of the public, so it therefore should come under its scrutiny. How can it perform such a duty effectively and democratically when Board votes and debates are held almost in secret? It is the responsibility of our public representatives not to appeal to Board member's privilege in justifying their refusal to publish their records. The Board is not some secretive society borne of a cadre of elitists and the power-connected, removed from the rest of the region they should be serving. But it very well could become such a body in the absence of proper accountability and transparency. Your fears that simply moving the votes and debates of the Board to a forum more accessible to the public would impose upon the rights of the Board members are both misplaced and irrational - our politicians work for us, and they should be aware of any conditions and responsibilities they must fulfill before taking the job. If you believe that politicians have the right to keep their records in secret, then I suppose elections should still be done in secret, with the political positions of each candidate also remaining concealed?

There is another danger of leaving the Board's debates in secret: it grants a worrying amount of power to the Chairman. The way the telegram system works means that the Chairman of the Board could record each vote individually, which presents the danger that he or she could falsify the results of a vote on legislation in order to arbitrarily push their political agenda without any democratic oversight whatsoever. Individual Board members may not personally consult with each other on Board votes, meaning that this lack of accountability could lead to the Chairman becoming an effective dictator of the region.

I am very strongly in favour of bringing accountability, oversight and transparency to the Board. In any republic there must be checks and balances to assure that each corridor of power is acting within the law. Our President, our Managers, our elections, and our House all act within the view of the public and the rule of law - why not the Board? We must double down on our demand for much-needed accountability from the politicians, and push for this today.

You're calling my position misplaced and irrational, yet you insinuate that I believe people shouldn't know what their candidates believe, that the Chairman becoming a dictator is any more likely than the Board becoming a personality contest, and that the people need Board accountability right this minute? Tsk tsk.

The only accountability I believe in is personal accountability. The Board already answers to the people; they are officials elected monthly who are called upon to vote on matters of public interest. It is the responsibility of the Board's members to perform the job they volunteered for, and furthermore they must answer the inquiries of the people as well. You're right in that Board members should better summarize their contributions and that voting records (such as who voted for or against proposed legislation) should be released after a vote has passed - mandating that all Board decisions, debates, and dialogue be made public is an irresponsible means of accomplishing that. No government can succeed at making someone liable without great cost - not even our own.

There is a way to balance private debate and public concern - establish a Board precedent (or, if you must, write legislation) that the Chairman must release the full voting record (who voted for or against proposed legislation) once the vote has ended. That way, people know what their elected officials are doing, Board members won't be as pressured to change their votes, and by the time legislation passes or fails, it has already been thoroughly debated and considered, thus giving everyone the opportunity to cool down, regardless of the result.

Our Constitution has already established a system of checks and balances, and the Board adheres to each given. That's more than I can say for, say, your past Presidency - as someone you've frequently consulted, I can attest to the fact that most of your policy did not occur in full public view. Was it immoral for you to keep secrets? No. Could it have been? By your logic, yes. More importantly, do we hear any calls for executive transparency? I don't think so! Why, then, are you calling for the Board to disperse information widely when that is the place our political affairs go to be condensed? We're this region's version of a Senate, not of reality television; if you really want to see politicians air out their dirty laundry for all to see, go read Das Kommune's RMB.

I maintain that it is the privilege of the Board to internalize their affairs, and the responsibility of the Board to share pertinent information with the public. "Pertinent" does not mean "everything they do, instantaneously" - if you really want to know everything the Board is considering at any given moment, and want to have all of it clog the RMB as each member's thoughts develop, well, you might find others are willing to vote for such extreme measures as well...just be careful what you wish for. People hold their Board members to a certain standard, and I now see that this standard is higher than it was before; people want to know who voted for what, and they want to know what the Board is doing at any one time. The Board's policy for public disclosure should indeed change, but this does not mean regulations should be stuffed down our throats. Remember that you can count on us to defend your interests without infringing on anyone's rights.

Let's all calm down, here. No need to get hostile.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:

There is a way to balance private debate and public concern - establish a Board precedent (or, if you must, write legislation) that the Chairman must release the full voting record (who voted for or against proposed legislation) once the vote has ended. That way, people know what their elected officials are doing, Board members won't be as pressured to change their votes, and by the time legislation passes or fails, it has already been thoroughly debated and considered, thus giving everyone the opportunity to cool down, regardless of the result.

What exactly did you think I meant when I proposed a weekly report?

Humpheria wrote:Let's all calm down, here. No need to get hostile.

TAR AND FEATHER, TAR AND FEATHER

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:You're calling my position misplaced and irrational, yet you insinuate that I believe people shouldn't know what their candidates believe, that the Chairman becoming a dictator is any more likely than the Board becoming a personality contest, and that the people need Board accountability right this minute? Tsk tsk.

The only accountability I believe in is personal accountability. The Board already answers to the people; they are officials elected monthly who are called upon to vote on matters of public interest. It is the responsibility of the Board's members to perform the job they volunteered for, and furthermore they must answer the inquiries of the people as well. You're right in that Board members should better summarize their contributions and that voting records (such as who voted for or against proposed legislation) should be released after a vote has passed - mandating that all Board decisions, debates, and dialogue be made public is an irresponsible means of accomplishing that. No government can succeed at making someone liable without great cost - not even our own.

There is a way to balance private debate and public concern - establish a Board precedent (or, if you must, write legislation) that the Chairman must release the full voting record (who voted for or against proposed legislation) once the vote has ended. That way, people know what their elected officials are doing, Board members won't be as pressured to change their votes, and by the time legislation passes or fails, it has already been thoroughly debated and considered, thus giving everyone the opportunity to cool down, regardless of the result.

Our Constitution has already established a system of checks and balances, and the Board adheres to each given. That's more than I can say for, say, your past Presidency - as someone you've frequently consulted, I can attest to the fact that most of your policy did not occur in full public view. Was it immoral for you to keep secrets? No. Could it have been? By your logic, yes. More importantly, do we hear any calls for executive transparency? I don't think so! Why, then, are you calling for the Board to disperse information widely when that is the place our political affairs go to be condensed? We're this region's version of a Senate, not of reality television; if you really want to see politicians air out their dirty laundry for all to see, go read Das Kommune's RMB.

I maintain that it is the privilege of the Board to internalize their affairs, and the responsibility of the Board to share pertinent information with the public. "Pertinent" does not mean "everything they do, instantaneously" - if you really want to know everything the Board is considering at any given moment, and want to have all of it clog the RMB as each member's thoughts develop, well, you might find others are willing to vote for such extreme measures as well...just be careful what you wish for. People hold their Board members to a certain standard, and I now see that this standard is higher than it was before; people want to know who voted for what, and they want to know what the Board is doing at any one time. The Board's policy for public disclosure should indeed change, but this does not mean regulations should be stuffed down our throats. Remember that you can count on us to defend your interests without infringing on anyone's rights.

I don't see how you made a connection between Boardsmen's voting records being on public display and races becoming a contest of personalities. Voting records being published would turn elections into a contest of ideas - exactly the kind of contest we need in a political race.

Your suggestions would certainly be a step forward, but essentially your fears can be summarised as this: this proposal could lead to too much democracy. I, like many others in this region, am opposed to democracy, and took very careful steps during my Presidency to strengthen and improve our republican, constitutional model of government rather than blindly giving power to the majority. But I do not believe that making legislation votes and debates public real-time would cause any issues like the ones you've outlined. Before the Board voted exclusively via telegram, Boardsmen often stated their positions on pieces of legislation before voting on them. This is not so nowadays. Hell, when running for office, many candidates don't even make their policies or positions clear at all! A fully transparent Board would mean that Boardsmen would be inclined to state their positions on issues, and interact with the public concerning legislation and political issues.

I tried my best to consult and interact with the public at every relevant avenue and explain all of my decisions. Making an individual decision and searching one's conscience for an answer is something that does not need to be exposed to the public view, and something that I'm not trying to subject the Board to. There is no "executive transparency" issue because the administration is not passing laws in secret, or holding elections without telling anybody, or refusing to give the names of cabinet members. That's not to insinuate the Board is corrupted in any way, but we should be making the Board more like Congress on C-SPAN rather than a series of back-room meetings between politicians.

Humpheria wrote:Let's all calm down, here. No need to get hostile.

It's all good.

Da Man With Da Plan wrote:Hello

Welcome! It just so happens we could use a plan ;)

Ankha wrote:You pig.

The rate of inflation (RoI) in my country is 1.0. Currency has never gone down in worth in the entire history of my nation. Meaning: prices have always stayed the same, although citizens earn more and more money as time goes on. City transit, healthcare, etc. are all provided by the state. The budget is divvied up to allow for colossal funds for the defense and law enforcement departments. 96% of the money earned by the citizens is re-taken by the state, leaving them (obviously) only 4%. 4% can still buy quite a lot, contrary to the appearance.

2nd in the region for largest defense forces.

Feels even better than the tax rate. Hey, high taxes buy a large military. I've gotta keep up my quota of annexed countries and whatnot.

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Rotgeheim wrote:2nd in the region for largest defense forces.

Feels even better than the tax rate. Hey, high taxes buy a large military. I've gotta keep up my quota of annexed countries and whatnot.

I have no taxes (probably even negative) and I still came in 7th.

I COULDN'T HEAR THE SOUND OF YOUR THEFT OVER THE SOUND OF MY TAX-FREE GUNS.

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

Miencraft wrote:I COULDN'T HEAR THE SOUND OF YOUR THEFT OVER THE SOUND OF MY TAX-FREE GUNS.

Theft makes no noise, but artillery does. You'll hear the noise of the nationwide bombardment of Miencraft, thanks to my humongous defense budget, which is a direct result of my tax rate.

pfff Keynesians, always declaring war

Republic Of Minerva wrote:pfff Keynesians, always declaring war

It helps their economy or something..

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