Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Ankha wrote:For the record, CE is from Texas.

A communist in texas? Ah man, CE it must be rough for you ;P

The Amarican Empire wrote:Guys, do you prefer Anarcho Communism or State Capitalism.

I prefer no communism

Is anyone here a fan of 30 Seconds to Mars?

Ankha wrote:For the record, CE is from Texas.

True but I am germanic ancestry wise and even culturally in some regards. I am learning german and I learn german history.

Muh Roads wrote:A communist in texas? Ah man, CE it must be rough for you ;P

Absolute hell here. But I am seeing a degree of social liberalism in the works here.

Communal Militia wrote:

Absolute hell here. But I am seeing a degree of social liberalism in the works here.

Really? Never would have thought. Must be in Dallas, heheheh.

Damn, I'm pretty proud of the APPEAL act. Thanks for the support yall.

Y'know, I bet Israel would jump on the chance to help us in Iraq if we just went to them about it instead of all the enemies we have there. They're undoubtedly in the most trouble if Isis takes Baghdad.

You know what else I bet? We'd probably get something done if our leaders were actually in their offices.

Miencraft wrote:Y'know, I bet Israel would jump on the chance to help us in Iraq if we just went to them about it instead of all the enemies we have there. They're undoubtedly in the most trouble if Isis takes Baghdad.

You know what else I bet? We'd probably get something done if our leaders were actually in their offices.

I think Israel has enough of its own problems.. lol

Israel joining hands with the "Safavid Kuffar" to fight the Sunni uprising in Iraq would only lead to increased attacks against them, on the part of ISIS-sympathizers in Gaza, not to mention the fact that any support Israel could provide would be negligible.

Besides, Iran, Assad and HizbAllah have much more to lose in Iraq, from the Sunni uprising, than Israel does. Iran needs a Shi'i ruled Baghdad, in order to maintain the already hampered supply lines to Assad and Nasrallah.

Even then, the Sunnis won't take Baghdad.

Like we need to be involved at all.

No, let's remove our presence from the middle east. This goes for you too, Britain! There is no reason to be there.

Only reason why we are there is because of money.

Communal Militia wrote:Only reason why we are there is because of money.

We trade with nations like Qatar. We get money, yet do not have a presence in that region.

How is it hard for the US gov to understand that military action won't secure resources the most efficiently?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:No, let's remove our presence from the middle east. This goes for you too, Britain! There is no reason to be there.

This is, of course, the optimal solution.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:We trade with nations like Qatar. We get money, yet do not have a presence in that region.

How is it hard for the US gov to understand that military action won't secure resources the most efficiently?

We don't have a military presence in Qatar? That's, umm... inaccurate. And we most certainly have a presence in "the region," given that it borders the Saudis and is just a tiny bit south, down the Persian Gulf from Bahrain, which hosts the United States' Fifth Fleet.

I think we can all agree to bring all the troops back home.

The Amarican Empire wrote:I wonder what of lack thereof hates most, the state or Communism.

Trick question, there is only one freedom

Communal Militia wrote:Only reason why we are there is because of money.

Got to get me some of that petro-dollar, cant ever get enough of that feisty fiat

Communal Militia wrote:I think we can all agree to bring all the troops back home.

Look at this guy, he just agreed with a bunch of libtards on a serious policy point

Pevvania wrote:Lol, Glenn Beck

pretty much sums it up

Yeah, it's about high time we take ourselves out of the middle east

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Yeah, it's about high time we take ourselves out of [B]literally everywhere[/B]

fixed it for you

Lack There Of wrote:Look at this guy, he just agreed with a bunch of libtards on a serious policy point

What exactly are you? And it isn't a super specific viewpoint. Many people feel that way.

*begins to realize that he may be the most interventionist individual in the region*

Lack There Of wrote:fixed it for you

Thanks Lack

Communal Militia wrote:What exactly are you? And it isn't a super specific viewpoint. Many people feel that way.

I am a simple man of simple means, and I think someone is just afraid to come out of the libertarian closet. Its ok, dont be afraid, we'll accept you for who you are

Lack There Of wrote:I am a simple man of simple means, and I think someone is just afraid to come out of the libertarian closet. Its ok, dont be afraid, we'll accept you for who you are

Come on Communal, you can do it

Yes you can! Yes you can!

I think you have the wrong idea. I simply agreed that the military should be pulled out of all regions of the world. I very much disagree with the classical liberal notions of economic policy and social policy.

I think you are trying to get something out of me. Not happening.

Communal Militia wrote:You're right, I recognize the inherent flaws of collectivism. I will proudly stand with Rand in 2016.

It's only a matter of time

Communal Militia wrote:I will never be a Capitalist but I do think that Amarican would be a great General Secretary!

Communal Militia wrote:People are putting words in my mouth. Halp meh pls

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I agree Communal Amarican would be a great leader! American for President of Libertatem!

Right-Winged Nation wrote:It's only a matter of time that Amarican leads us to greatness!

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I believe Socialism is the only viable solution to market error and misallocation of resources. The free market has to be replaced by a planned economy

The Amarican Empire wrote:Guise y r we quot'n eech otha?????//???///?//slash

Communal Militia wrote:Amarican is both Sexy and Delicious!

Greetings, almost hopped on the independent boat.

Welcome to Libertatem, I am Amarican but you can call be chris The Messiah of the region :)

Call him Amarican.

I'm Conservative Idealism, long-time resident and Manager of the State. Welcome to Libertatem; I hope you enjoy your stay.

Not apart of the region here, but I am a Marxist that came in here to debate. I like to be called communal.

I'm lack and it's none of your damn business what I'm doing. Am I being detained?

Hello, I am Minerva, consequentalist, classical liberal, and artist. Howdoyoudo?

O lack we love you. Um you too miv.........:)

Post self-deleted by The New United States.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=300668&start=125

Utter insanity. Halp plz

Try this quiz

http://www.eemec.med.ed.ac.uk/wiki/wikinode.asp?id=13086&wiki=1265

The Amarican Empire wrote:Guys, do you prefer Anarcho Communism or State Capitalism.

Anarcho-communism, because it is unsustainable.

Post self-deleted by Pevvania.

So, have you guys heard about Starbucks' program to help its employees complete their own college degrees for free? I think it's fantastic.

Pevvania wrote:So, have you guys heard about Starbucks' program to help its employees complete their own college degrees for free? I think it's fantastic.

No but that is very cool! Of course, McDonald's has a scholarship program too.. but they never get credit. Lol

I'm liking the look of these updates.

Max is finally doing stuff that we don't need but make the game seem more like actual whatever. Yay.

Miencraft wrote:I'm liking the look of these updates.

Max is finally doing stuff that we don't need but make the game seem more like actual whatever. Yay.

Me as well :)

Anyone want to draft a welcome telegram? We desperately need one.

"Heeeeeeeeeeeey girlfriend,

Hows about you drop in and join us in Libertaaaaaatem?

Coolio! So click the button below so we can get rollingggggggg!"

Republic Of Minerva wrote:"Heeeeeeeeeeeey girlfriend,

Hows about you drop in and join us in Libertaaaaaatem?

Coolio! So click the button below so we can get rollingggggggg!"

Love it

It definetly shows the flamboyance of Libertatem.

The amount of lols produced by this image is wholly unprecedented

https://fbcdn-photos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-0/10457824_329997580485897_867940266449177422_n.jpg?oh=9279efdc4a1bc98c970ef91855700ac6&oe=5412B3CD&__gda__=1410577676_03066365fd30fb9b864b7e8f13a5783e

Lack There Of wrote:The amount of lols produced by this image is wholly unprecedented

https://fbcdn-photos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-0/10457824_329997580485897_867940266449177422_n.jpg?oh=9279efdc4a1bc98c970ef91855700ac6&oe=5412B3CD&__gda__=1410577676_03066365fd30fb9b864b7e8f13a5783e

BAHAHAHAHA

Flawless economic logic from Being Liberal: https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10426569_10152233195526275_7270341336993536626_n.jpg

Pevvania wrote:Flawless economic logic from Being Liberal: https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10426569_10152233195526275_7270341336993536626_n.jpg

For those of you who don't like following links:

"In the 1950s and 1960s when the top tax rate was 70-92%, we laid the interstate system, built the Internet, put a man on the moon, defeated Communism, our education system was the envy of the world, our middle class was thriving, our economy unparalleled.

You want that back?

Raise taxes on the rich."

The amount of stupid in this statement... burns.

No that makes a lot of since actually. If we could just tax the rich 100% we would all have flying cars by now

Lack There Of wrote:No that makes a lot of since actually. If we could just tax the rich 100% we would all have flying cars by now

Fun fact: Exactly a week ago was the precise date Back to the Future is set in. Therefore, we're supposed to have flying cars next year.

Miencraft wrote:Fun fact: Exactly a week ago was the precise date Back to the Future is set in. Therefore, we're supposed to have flying cars next year.

If only we could tax the rich a little bit more

Pevvania wrote:Flawless economic logic from Being Liberal: https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10426569_10152233195526275_7270341336993536626_n.jpg

I don't think that was true entirely, but it did help.

Communal Militia wrote:I don't think that was true entirely, but it did help.

The thing is, nobody ever paid those extortionate rates. The effective top marginal income tax rate has remained relatively constant over the past century at 20-30%.

Pevvania wrote:The thing is, nobody ever paid those extortionate rates. The effective top marginal income tax rate has remained relatively constant over the past century at 20-30%.

Don't you dare question, being liberal. That's a highly respectable page

Lack There Of wrote:Don't you dare question, being liberal. That's a highly respectable page

?

Easily the most weird hours of RMB to read...

Lack There Of wrote:Don't you dare question, being classically liberal. That's a highly respectable page

Ok then. Classically.

Post self-deleted by Liberosia.

There definitely needs to be a graduated income tax, or progressive tax.

Liberosia wrote:As a classical liberal, I go for the classic look.

Ok then.

Communal Militia wrote:There definitely needs to be a graduated income tax, or progressive tax.

Or in layman terms, "I hate the idea that some have made better use of the means available to them and feel it is my right to use a arbitrary authority to take their wealth and use it how i see fit"

Communal Militia wrote:There definitely needs to be an organized monopoly on violence so we can legally steal a larger ratio of the more successful people's property, progressively.

Lack There Of wrote:Or in layman terms, "I hate the idea that some have made better use of the means available to them and feel it is my right to use a arbitrary authority to take their wealth and use it how i see fit"

Yep, and Liberosias got it too.

Yay, i changed my flag a tad. Looks better now.

High taxes actually hurt the poor a lot, as the BCL article I cited yesterday proved (link - http://being-classical-liberal.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/wealth-redistribution-and-poverty.html)

The income tax system needs to be dismantled from the bottom up.

Communal Militia wrote:There definitely needs to be a graduated income tax, or progressive tax.

Or, now this might sound crazy, but maybe the government shouldn't steal our hard earned money at all? Just a thought

You and Lack would click ^ XP

But, I totally agree.( Speaking for the small business here..)

It actually allows more extensive purchasing power and benefits to the middle class. Someone doesn't need millions of dollars to live or to succeed in life.

Communal Militia wrote:It actually allows more extensive purchasing power and benefits to the middle class. Someone doesn't need millions of dollars to live or to succeed in life.

Are not millions of dollars the result of success?

Why should those who work hard to succeed end up with nothing to show for it?

Communal Militia wrote:It actually allows more extensive purchasing power and benefits to the middle class. Someone doesn't need millions of dollars to live or to succeed in life.

These millions actually keep the economy going. They do not sit idle. They're stored either in productive investments that employ people or in normal banks. Those banks turn the capital into loans to business start-ups and expansions and young people who want to buy a house or a car, amongst others. So the greedy Rockefeller who puts all of his money in the bank is probably helping the poor even more than charitable investments ever could have.

I don't even want that large sum of money in my pocket. I find being rich a very bad and unhealthy life style.

Pevvania wrote:These millions actually keep the economy going. They do not sit idle. They're stored either in productive investments that employ people or in normal banks. Those banks turn the capital into loans to business start-ups and expansions and young people who want to buy a house or a car, amongst others. So the greedy Rockefeller who puts all of his money in the bank is probably helping the poor even more than charitable investments ever could have.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner...

Miencraft wrote:Are not millions of dollars the result of success?

Why should those who work hard to succeed end up with nothing to show for it?

I am not saying take it all. I am saying they should be expected to pay more income taxes than people who make substantially less than they do.

Pevvania wrote:These millions actually keep the economy going. They do not sit idle. They're stored either in productive investments that employ people or in normal banks. Those banks turn the capital into loans to business start-ups and expansions and young people who want to buy a house or a car, amongst others. So the greedy Rockefeller who puts all of his money in the bank is probably helping the poor even more than charitable investments ever could have.

My argument would be that the money that would create jobs and provide other charitable services would be in the hands of the public.

I say a national sales tax that varies between product.

Cigerets taxed more than food.

Communal Militia wrote:I don't even want that large sum of money in my pocket. I find being rich a very bad and unhealthy life style.

Good for you, but don't force that on other people. If other people want to keep their hard-earned money, don't take that away from them because you think it's somehow unhealthy.

Communal Militia wrote:My argument would be that the money that would create jobs and provide other charitable services would be in the hands of the public.

Banks are rather public.

Matter of fact, you don't actually keep any of your own money when you put it into a bank unless you get a SDB. You make a withdrawal, that's someone else's money.

Northern Prussia wrote:I say a national sales tax that varies between product.

Cigerets taxed more than food.

That only makes sense. Like the necessity rule already here, if its food, water, things you NEED, they shouldn't be taxed or should so very little. The luxuries in life, whether they damage your lungs or not, but if they are not needed for survival, and are not even good for you, they should be taxed more. BUT, I still think taxes should be significantly cut or removed for small businesses.

Miencraft wrote:Good for you, but don't force that on other people. If other people want to keep their hard-earned money, don't take that away from them because you think it's somehow unhealthy.

Its not hurting anyone. People get that choice. We live in America, free country.....where you're free to succeed, (and make money doing it..)

Ankha wrote:Its not hurting anyone. People get that choice. We live in America, free country.....where you're free to succeed, (and make money doing it..)

Mhmm.

Communal Militia wrote:I am not saying take it all. I am saying they should be expected to pay more income taxes than people who make substantially less than they do.

My argument would be that the money that would create jobs and provide other charitable services would be in the hands of the public.

1. It's a reasonable idea, but one that is ultimately ineffectual. Progressive tax systems nearly always fall on the poor the hardest, a) because these codes are inevitably filled with loopholes that are easily exploitable by anyone with an expensive accountant. Legal tax avoidance is much more prevalent than tax evasion. I already cited the fact that the effective marginal top tax rate has remained constant in the US. Lower-income groups don't have as much access to accounting services, b) this deters investment, making the populace generally less wealthy than they could have been and reducing the number of employment opportunities. As an example, workers' wages could rise by an astonishing 12% if the US federal corporation tax was abolished. (Source - http://being-classical-liberal.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/corporate-taxation-is-horrible-idea.html)

2. The problem with this is that "the public" are bad central planners, as is everyone. Without price signals, resources are allocated extremely inefficiently and would lead to economic collapse. All capital spent by the state is capital taken away from the market, millions of individual human actions that allocate resources in the places they are supposed to be at. Sure, a welfare program might help some people, but the money for that is being taken away from a company that's on the brink of collapse, and by extension the hundreds of its employees that will soon be out of a job and sitting unproductively on welfare.

Northern Prussia wrote:I say a national sales tax that varies between product.

Cigerets taxed more than food.

I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of a national sales tax. Economic studies have been unquestionably in favour of one, but it is fundamentally a regressive tax. And here in Europe, I know from our revenue systems that sales taxes are much more politically intractable than income taxes. They're hidden from the public, essentially, so they're much harder to get rid of than direct income seizures. It's one of the reasons why the American welfare state is so much smaller than European models.

Communal Militia wrote:It actually allows more extensive purchasing power and benefits to the middle class. Someone doesn't need millions of dollars to live or to succeed in life.

Communal Militia wrote:I don't even want that large sum of money in my pocket. I find being rich a very bad and unhealthy life style.

Like others have said, the money doesn't just sit there.

You don't need millions of dollars to succeed, but having that money (even if it's just in a bank somewhere) helps others succeed. It is not immoral to act in your own self-interest especially if that, in turn, helps others.

You're happy with modesty. Join the club. Just don't ruin it for the rest of us, considering its our contributions to the economy that make your lifestyle livable in the first place.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Like others have said, the money doesn't just sit there.

You don't need millions of dollars to succeed, but having that money (even if it's just in a bank somewhere) helps others succeed. It is not immoral to act in your own self-interest especially if that, in turn, helps others.

You're happy with modesty. Join the club. Just don't ruin it for the rest of us, considering its our contributions to the economy that make your lifestyle livable in the first place.

Thats about the nicest way to put it.

Black & White: Whether you like it or not, we get to make that choice.

My friends, I am royally pissed today. With the situation in Iraq and with the ridiculous ruling on the Washington Redskins, I am pissed. Does anyone else share my anger, because I legitametly want to smash something right now.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:My friends, I am royally pissed today. With the situation in Iraq and with the ridiculous ruling on the Washington Redskins, I am pissed. Does anyone else share my anger, because I legitametly want to smash something right now.

The redskins issue is repulsive and preposterous.

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