Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I wish I had some mind poison.

Why would you want some Communism?

Narland, The New United States, Rateria, Wyattish

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:The Knights of Columbus are out to commit suicide. They dropped their uniforms, watered down their ceremonies, and have now eliminated their initiation. What are they now?

They should just become an actual paramilitary organization.

The New United States

Skaveria wrote:They should just become an actual paramilitary organization.

A bunch of octogenarian Catholics in tactical gear, vanquishing the enemies of the Pope. It'd be glorious.

The New United States wrote:A bunch of octogenarian Catholics in tactical gear, vanquishing the enemies of the Pope. It'd be glorious.

I actually non-ironically support the idea of widespread militias and paramilitary organizations of all stripes. III%ers, religious extremists, communists, nazis, whatever, if you actually believe in a thing. Actually fight for the thing. We can only be armchair, message-board activists for so long. People need to give a damn about politics again, 1780s style.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:The Knights of Columbus are out to commit suicide. They dropped their uniforms, watered down their ceremonies, and have now eliminated their initiation. What are they now?

The Days of Our Lives? Is that even still a soap opera?

What would spice the Knights of Columbus up a bit is the Space Force of Columbus.

The New United States, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:I actually non-ironically support the idea of widespread militias and paramilitary organizations of all stripes. III%ers, religious extremists, communists, nazis, whatever, if you actually believe in a thing. Actually fight for the thing. We can only be armchair, message-board activists for so long. People need to give a damn about politics again, 1780s style.

I think I agree with your spirit but not sure how I’d feel about groups like the KKK arming themselves and texting to bring back Jim Crowe. I was just saying to Merv on discord that I think advocacy is better than just voting.

Yes, I disagree with you guys on like probably ~80% of stuff but I respect you guys who actually text/canvass/phonebank for your causes rather than just post online

Rateria

The Knights of Columbus were real head bashers

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

🗣MICHAEL BLOOMBERG WAS ON JEFFERY EPSTEIN’S PLANE🗣

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:You were there. You know.

You got me. I'm Jeffery Epstein

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

RIP Roger Scruton (1944-2020). One of those British Conservatives that made self-examination uncomfortable but not unbearable. Someone who put his love for freedom into action. Not a Conservative in the American sense, but he will be missed. "Thinkers of the New Left" is almost 40 years old but still worth reading.

The New United States, Kongeriget Island

Apparently referring to one's animal as an emergency food ration can be triggering. Who would have thunk?

The New United States, Miri Islands

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:I actually non-ironically support the idea of widespread militias and paramilitary organizations of all stripes. III%ers, religious extremists, communists, nazis, whatever, if you actually believe in a thing. Actually fight for the thing. We can only be armchair, message-board activists for so long. People need to give a damn about politics again, 1780s style.

Yeah, how's that working out in Iraq?

The New United States

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:[spoiler=-SNIP-]The KoC are just doing exactly what other groups like the Oddfellows, Woodmen, Foresters, and a long list of other fraternal organizations had done during the age of Boomers. Post-"Golden Age of Fraternalism," the Boomers were more and more interested in either being simple social clubs, or being charities and simply lowered standards at a steady pace, retreating from main streets and the forefront of community events because "it'll save money" and the grand buildings that were almost literally the cornerstone of towns were derided as "unmaintainable, expensive, and unnecessary white elephants, and we'd be lucky if we could pay someone to take them off our hands." These millions of dollar buildings with long histories were then either left to rot or sold for dirt cheap where they were then either demolished for apartment complexes or (in many other cases) easily remodeled and modernized and turned into movie theaters, art galleries or something else (often with meeting rooms left intact for tourists, because there actually is real interest that the inept and out of touch Boomer leadership of many of these groups ignore).

When the rolls began to thin, and members began to die (because the boomers had retreated from the spotlight and had blissfully ceased recruitment as a result) they began to panic. The KoC in particular began to artificially keep their numbers up by not reporting deaths, resignations, etc. But, like the leadership of nearly every other fraternal organization that had served as the foundation of America (Alexis de Tocqueville), they were Boomers with no connection to modern day human beings and decided that the correct long term response was to lower standards for membership, water down ritual and ceremony, lose the dress codes, throw out the rules, and make it very easy to join (one day and your a full member perhaps?)

Why? Well, simple, "Young people these days don't have time nor interest in any of that."

So they now have a revolving door recruitment "plan": bring in new members with great talk of what you do and are, and then ignore as they revolve right back out the door when they see you out of touch boomers have no clue what your doing. Repeat the cycle.

The difference? The KoC is doing it much later than the others and should know better. But it's a deliberate attack by anti-KoC leadership of the KoC who dislike everything about the KoC and want it to be a simple insurance company for Catholics because the Church is afraid of fraternity.

It's sad, because Fraternalism, is just what is needed today, with an ever increasing population of single, bored Americans with usually small circles of friends. I'm sure, if we wait, Fascism and Communism will fill the void.

(For the record, I have nothing to do with the KoC)[/spoiler]

Very well put. The death of fraternal organizations, churches, and other civic institutions, replaced by the cult of the atomic individual, is a huge part of the death of American community life. Participating in ritual and in community teaches us so many important life lessons, makes us into better, more responsible members of society, and connects us in meaningful and fulfilling ways with those around us.

No wonder young people are, generally speaking, so lonely and depressed, when their lifeline to humanity is watching vapid YouTubers and consuming nihilistic garbage on imageboards, rather than through the life-sustaining bonds of fraternal brotherhood, or religious devotion and service, or etc.

Narland, The United States Of Patriots

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/bolivia-caretaker-president-anez-run-election-200125014137523.html

Good! We need a pro-US right-winger to fix the mess that Bolivia's become. State socialist and the most unequal country in the world, imagine my shock.

well its valentines day or as mobsters call it massacre my enemies day!

Rateria

Here's a hypothetical, and spare me the pain of "this would never happen." Yes, I know.

If some cartoonishly rich scrooge mcduck character bought all the property in the world, and he can have whatever weird rules he wants on his private property, what stops him from making himself king of the world, charging his subjects rent (taxes) and demanding people address him as "your highness?"

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Here's a hypothetical, and spare me the pain of "this would never happen." Yes, I know.

If some cartoonishly rich scrooge mcduck character bought all the property in the world, and he can have whatever weird rules he wants on his private property, what stops him from making himself king of the world, charging his subjects rent (taxes) and demanding people address him as "your highness?"

Me putting a pipe bomb in his airplane cause death to tyrants

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Me putting a pipe bomb in his airplane cause death to tyrants

I mean from a philosophical perspective. He hasn't violated the NAP in any way

Skaveria wrote:Here's a hypothetical, and spare me the pain of "this would never happen." Yes, I know.

If some cartoonishly rich scrooge mcduck character bought all the property in the world, and he can have whatever weird rules he wants on his private property, what stops him from making himself king of the world, charging his subjects rent (taxes) and demanding people address him as "your highness?"

Never thought of it that way

I missed a lot of it so forgive me if I missed the point- but I was recently initiated as a first degree KoC and I am very saddened to see the lack of Catholic fraternity; it’s just not held up to be important. They say it is, but I have never heard a Knight call another Knight brother outside of a meeting.

However, I do receive plenty of letters that I should pick up their life insurance. Hmm...

The New United States

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:What if I did that?

I would pipe bomb your airplane

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Greetings, Libertatem,

I'm Knat, Foreign Service Officer of the FCN. Here's a short update on what's going on in the Federation Of Conservative Nations:

After a brief period of civil strife, we have been able to stabilize our region under the leadership of President Greater Bastion. As a staffer of the Department of Foreign Affairs, I've been assigned to keep contact with your region during the next few weeks.

If you ever have any questions, or desire assistance from the FCN, just let me know. Feel free to drop by our RMB anytime that you like, or invite me to your Discord.

Knat

Foreign Service Officer of the FCN

The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Skaveria, Greater Bastion

Is there anything still going on in this region? I miss the internal politics; that is to say before Wilhelm started abusing his constitutional powers...

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:What constitutional powers?

Eh it was something about opening an embassy with some friend of yours without permission to do so

Heres a question is there such a thing as "extreme libertarianism?"

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Suzi Island wrote:Heres a question is there such a thing as "extreme libertarianism?"

Typically the most extreme form of libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism, but I've heard arguments that anarcho-capitalism is a separate ideology completely, rather than a subtype of libertarianism. So it's related to libertarianism in the same way anarcho-communism would be to democratic socialism.

Out of the subtypes of libertarianism proper, minarchism seems to be the most radical.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Miencraft wrote:Yeah but at least they're better than other underdeveloped nations.

Maybe.

Hopefully.

I mean, even the most primitive of tribes knows how to write down how a government works, and the UK still hasn't figured that out, so maybe I'm giving them a bit too much credit.

This is demonstrably untrue. There are a great many savage African tribes that still use no written language, and very few orthographic systems developed in pre-colonial Africa.

The New United States wrote:Because I'm an American, loyal to a people, place, and culture over any ideology.

That being said, there is obviously a range among both democratic and monarchical leaders. I think that Trump is definitely on the better end of American politicians, and I think many of his most egregious shortcomings as President, like pressuring the Fed to kick credit expansion into high-gear, have been due to the fact that he must short-sightedly do what will make him more viable for re-election.

The solution, drawing from our rich cultural heritage as Americans, is not to make the President into an FDR-esque dictator for life, but it is to return to our roots of limiting suffrage to those with the biggest stake in our nation's long-term prosperity. If voting rights were limited to those deeply invested in their communities' wellbeing - like property owners and military servicemembers and veterans - then I think a lot of our problems with the socialists would be solved.

EDIT:

I think it might even be a good idea to limit voting rights to heads of household that have a minimum number of children under their care. It'd encourage folks to have more children and ensure that those voting have a legitimate stake in the future of our nation. Say, a minimum of three or four children per parental couple, for instance, would grant those parents the right to vote. No more childless catladies and nihilistic weenies voting our great nation into socialist, progressive oblivion.

So in other words Mormons and Hispanics will control the vote from now until lord knows when. Genius.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Violence really doesn't solve anything. You can only solve things with education. When someone starts advocating for violence it's a dead giveaway for the fact that they lack the capability to actually prove their ideologies superiority.

The guys in the 1780s were most certainly not in favor of numerous militias roaming around fighting eachother. Pretty sure that should be clear to anyone who's put even a little thought into the American Revolution and the aftermath (when the Founders put great effort into curbing fools who wanted to see warlords and civil wars).

When will you learn that people never responded to the appeal to reason and never will? It's not an intellectual or characterological deficiency; it's the immutable, eternal nature of human beings to respond to violence over reason, because human beings are inherently irrational no matter the degree to which they believe they have refined their logical faculties. Raw willpower of masses always emerges supreme; schemes to enhance the memetic value or "marketability" of an ideology within an ethical framework alien to it are always doomed to failure. Fidelity towards a national or ethnic identity may be reasoned any number of ways, but the ultimate reason why it will recur and reassert itself, no matter how much cosmopolitan life seeks to repress it, is because it is the most ancient and reliable instinct that man has learned to put his faith in throughout generations of organic community-building.

Tupolite wrote:This is demonstrably untrue. There are a great many savage African tribes that still use no written language, and very few orthographic systems developed in pre-colonial Africa.

Welcome to the joke, may I take your order?

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:No clue what you're talking about. All my actions have been justified and within the limits of the Constitution.

Now stop slandering my good name with accusations of the most heinous crime of opening embassies or I'll start suppressing your posts and take your citizenship away.

Eh you know what I'm talking about, not that I care about it anymore. I just miss the politics and relationships with other regions and whatnot.

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Happy Presidents Day.

The day where presidents from all over the world can stop by Joe-Bob's Car Wash and get a free Chili-Dog and Soda from the waiting room when they order a DeLuxe Wash and Vacuum.

Trump is my favorite non-framer President so far.

The New United States

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Narland wrote:Happy Presidents Day.

The day where presidents from all over the world can stop by Joe-Bob's Car Wash and get a free Chili-Dog and Soda from the waiting room when they order a DeLuxe Wash and Vacuum.

Trump is my favorite non-framer President so far.

Trump is great. Coolidge is underrated. His greatest critique is his greatest draw: he did nothing

Pevvania, Narland

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Lincoln was better.

Obama was better than Lincoln. Heck, maybe even FDR was better than Lincoln.

mean man kill slave owners

Narland, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Highway Eighty-Eight

The New United States wrote:Obama was better than Lincoln. Heck, maybe even FDR was better than Lincoln.

Nah. Slavey is a sin so scarlet that other infringements against liberty in the pursuit of its abolition are justifiable, if not necessarily justified. After all what offense to liberty is so great as holding a man in captivity for all his life.

Pevvania, Narland, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Nah. Slavey is a sin so scarlet that other infringements against liberty in the pursuit of its abolition are justified. After all what offense to liberty is so great as holding a man in captivity for all his life.

This isn't to say that Lincoln's suspension of the right of habaes corpus for instance was justified. But that isn't what he is celebrated for. When we celebrate anyone we usually do so in spite of their flaws not for them. For instance we celebrate MLK for his tremendous guidance of the civil rights movement and not for his lechery. Lincoln's political maneuvering in order to secure the passage of the 14th amendment as well as his signing of the emancipation proclamation ought to earn him praise. On a side note as someone who has suffered for 9 years now with chronic migraines I have to applaud Lincoln for being able to function as president during the civil war with them.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland, Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:KoC leadership seems even worse than that of other organizations. They are doing the same things as what the Woodmen did but much later, which to me indicates either (or both) incompetence and deliberate anti-KoC goals.

I do know that there are dedicated Oddfellows, Free Gardeners, and the like who are dutifully working their asses off to save and preserve their organizations. A slow and hard process but I'm sure there'll be success.

I don’t think it’s conspiracy. I think that the Catholic Church (esp. the Catholic Church in aspects of tradition, such of the importance of Catholic men joining the Knights) is dying in the West; how many American Catholics really know who the Knights are?

Because of a lack of tradition and reverence to the Mother Church, more and more devout Catholics have drawn away. Mass attendance is down and it’s because the Roman Catholic Church has nothing special to offer the youth, who statistically actually want a more traditional Church (not in this Papacy). Thus, the Knights of Columbus have had to push for making insurance more profitable, and overall, making the Knights money to carry out our duties.

Kongeriget Island

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Jadentopian Order wrote:mean man kill slave owners
My favorite meme after the Trump 2016 election is the still from the ST:TOS episode "The Savage Curtain" where the camera is centered on Lincoln, Kirk, and Spock.

Tell me about these democrats Spock...

Captain, they are a group of illogical self-absorbed free loaders who think everyone should think like them. They haven't been this angry since Lincoln freed their slaves.

[img<iframe src="https://me.me/embed/i/f828c3cf996d4e6a8279e0f7a1b7a0b1" width="500" height="527" frameBorder="0" class="meme-embed" style="max-width:100%;margin:0 auto;" allowFullScreen></iframe><p>via <a href="https://me.me">MEME</a></p>[/img]

Move Oregon's Border for a Better Idaho.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/483420-outraged-oregon-residents-petition-to-join-idaho

It does me proud to be an Idahodian.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria, Miri Islands

Narland wrote:Move Oregon's Border for a Better Idaho.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/483420-outraged-oregon-residents-petition-to-join-idaho

It does me proud to be an Idahodian.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Idaho good, Oregon bad. In all seriousness though I like Idaho its in my top 5 states to live in. Which are Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska

The New United States, Rateria

Got plenty of family in Idaho

Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Nah. Slavey is a sin so scarlet that other infringements against liberty in the pursuit of its abolition are justifiable, if not necessarily justified. After all what offense to liberty is so great as holding a man in captivity for all his life.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:This isn't to say that Lincoln's suspension of the right of habaes corpus for instance was justified. But that isn't what he is celebrated for. When we celebrate anyone we usually do so in spite of their flaws not for them. For instance we celebrate MLK for his tremendous guidance of the civil rights movement and not for his lechery. Lincoln's political maneuvering in order to secure the passage of the 14th amendment as well as his signing of the emancipation proclamation ought to earn him praise. On a side note as someone who has suffered for 9 years now with chronic migraines I have to applaud Lincoln for being able to function as president during the civil war with them.

Celebrate the abolition of slavery all you want, but Lincoln undoubtedly, irrevocably transformed the American system from a union of states into a unitary, centralized state. Much of what libertarians now oppose in the United States government is related to Lincoln's violent revolution against the American order as it originally was, and the most effective tools in the libertarian toolkit (nullification and secession, the "rightful remedy" to government overreach) were pried from the cold dead hands of Dixie.

In my judgement, that makes Lincoln a pretty bad president, even if he did free the southern slaves.

Skaveria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Idaho good, Oregon bad. In all seriousness though I like Idaho its in my top 5 states to live in. Which are Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska

The mountain west is gorgeous. Drove from the SLC area down to California recently, and man do you have a beautiful state.

I'd probably say my top five would be Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Idaho.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The civil war was inevitable. States rights vs federal rights was the cause. It just so happened that the states vs federal rights dispute manifested itself in slavery. I'd wager if by historical accedent, the south hadn't practiced slavery at the time of the civil war, most libertarians would at least celebrate the confederacy, if not outright be neo-confederates.

But slavery isn't the south's only sin, most people don't know it, but dixie, pre-reconstruction, had a problem with Socialism. They were very protectionist and several of the founders of the American Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements were former Confederates, most noticeably associated with the Haymarket bombing, it seems the dixie propensity towards rebellion carried foward, the type of rebellion mattering little. While some successfully purged themselves of their racism, they only did so by finding a new outlet for their hatred, the rich.

Narland, Miri Islands

The New United States wrote:Celebrate the abolition of slavery all you want, but Lincoln undoubtedly, irrevocably transformed the American system from a union of states into a unitary, centralized state. \\

Truthfully I think that this was inevitable. America had already begun to have imperial dreams with the war against Mexico and the spread to the west. This is all during the time colonial empires dominated and began to expand outside of Europe. Notice how almost immediately after the recovery from the civil war, we started a war with Spain and began attacking the tribes in the midwest/plains. If you want to run an effective imperialist state you need to centralize. If we wanted to be considered a superpower we needed imperial conquest.

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:No. It was slavery. The South couldn't give a damn about states' rights. It was about race, and about the enslavement of man.

Bloody Kansas, hit him again.

So you're just gonna ignore the part where I said that the states vs federal rights devide manifested through slavery?

Obviously it was about slavery superficially. What I'm saying is that a civil war was inevitable due to tensions between the states and the feds. Slavery just happened to be a big enough issue to light that tinderbox aflame.

Narland, The New United States, Miri Islands

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:It wasn't superficial. It was the entire political division. If the South cared about states' rights they would have avoided forcing slavery upon everyone else, would have avoided forcing protectionism (that oh so sacred socialism) upon the other states, and would probably have a history of opposing centralization... or maybe at the least mentioned it in their numerous statements made when they seceded.

But they didn't, because neither side has ever cared about centralism or federalism.

And I really can't seem to understand why federalism is automatically the libertarian choice. A decentralized state can be just as bad as a unitary one.

You lost me in the second half chief.

Federalism is the libertarian choice because reasonably decentralized decision making leads to the maximization of individual freedom and better decision making over all. It also leads to more competition between localities which drives better policies in the long run. No UN shills here please.

Miencraft, Narland

Narland wrote:Move Oregon's Border for a Better Idaho.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/483420-outraged-oregon-residents-petition-to-join-idaho

It does me proud to be an Idahodian.

Anyone have any thoughts?

I know a lot of conservative Oregonians here in CA that say eastern Oregon is basically Idaho anyway. Nobody outside of Portland likes the way the state is going. I'm fully in favor of them leaving.

Narland, Rateria

Why do some on the right want Don Jr. or Ivanka to run for president? Dynasties usually lead to bad outcomes, and just because they're Trumps doesn't mean they're qualified to run the country. Don is pretty good at attracting media but I fail to see any presidential qualities. Ivanka I think would make a very good politician, but I see her as somewhat of a liberal in Republican's clothing.

Ideally we'd have Rand Paul succeed Trump, but unfortunately I don't think he has the charisma and gravitas needed to win the presidency. Otherwise I'm perfectly happy for Pence or Haley to take the job.

Narland

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:It wasn't superficial. It was the entire political division. If the South cared about states' rights they would have avoided forcing slavery upon everyone else, would have avoided forcing protectionism (that oh so sacred socialism) upon the other states, and would probably have a history of opposing centralization... or maybe at the least mentioned it in their numerous statements made when they seceded.

But they didn't, because neither side has ever cared about centralism or federalism.

And I really can't seem to understand why federalism is automatically the libertarian choice. A decentralized state can be just as bad as a unitary one.

All things being equal, a decentralized state is inherently more free than a unitary one.

Pevvania, Narland

All these debates over great presidents always leave off chester arthur. Our obscure presidents need love too

Narland, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Why do some on the right want Don Jr. or Ivanka to run for president?

Unironically because the people running on the dem side still have "Beat Donald Trump" as their plan for what to do after they win in 2020, therefore Don Jr. should run in 2024 so that they actually have someone to beat.

But seriously though I'm just in it for the meme.

Pevvania, Narland, Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:New law in Libertatem:

No cigarettes allowed. If you're a cigarette, own a cigarette, or like cigarettes, gtfo.

I'm looking at Tupolite

That joke is old-hat

Suzi Island wrote:Heres a question is there such a thing as "extreme libertarianism?"

Over 50% of the libertarian electorate voted for Gary Johnson in the 2016 primaries. Of course there’s “extreme libertarianism”; Johnson was the only person on that stage who supported licenses to drive cars lol.

Pevvania, Narland, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:I know a lot of conservative Oregonians here in CA that say eastern Oregon is basically Idaho anyway. Nobody outside of Portland likes the way the state is going. I'm fully in favor of them leaving.

Eastern Washington south of Wazoo Commune (Washingtion State University), nearly all of rural Eastern Oregon, and much of Idaho* south of the People's Socialist Soyuz of the College of Idaho share a dominant sub-culture, that in turn interlink with the 2ndary and tertiary subcultural strata developed over several generations (commercially dubbed the "Inland Empire." The cultural equilibrium is something that people from out of state greatly disrupt when they bring their political baggage in with them (especially in their self-blind obliqueness and narrow minded presumptions that they mistake as "enlightened tolerance").

It seems southwest Oregon and northern Cal (north of SanFran Bedroom Communities) have more in common with each other that is somewhat distinct from Columbia/Snake River "Inland Empire" and Rocky Mountain Hinterland. Rainshadow country (east of the Cascades) and its industries and interests would easily clash with the fishing and rain forest (loose sense) interests if the State is too centralized and counties are less able to govern themselves (like what has already happened to California, Oregon, and Washington -- their "Progressivist" intolerance for local governance makes counties a tax-hole redundancy on far too many issues.)

*sans Blue Boise (Boise North End, Capitol Zone, and BSU campus), and Little California (the Poor Rich Men's Estates in and around Sun Valley/Hailey). Actually all of Boise, and its bedroom communities could be ceded to California and the rest of Idaho would rejoice.

Rateria

Auxorii wrote:Over 50% of the libertarian electorate voted for Gary Johnson in the 2016 primaries. Of course there’s “extreme libertarianism”; Johnson was the only person on that stage who supported licenses to drive cars lol.

I am of the opinion that the only people who need drivers licenses are:

civil servants, elected officials, and government contractors,

those who are still paying off their automobile,

those who only own a certificate of title to their automobile

those driving while conducting commerce and

resident aliens

Those who own actual title to their automobile (not a certificate of title),

have properly registered their automobile with the county/municipality of record as personal property,

are travelling for person or trade (not otherwise driving while conducting commerce)

can reach the brake pedal and see over the dashboard at the same time, and

have a mental capacity to engage and negotiate traffic without incident greater than a typical university snowflake

should be able to show themselves to the County Clerk and receive a writ of conveyance (if necessary), at no fee.

But no, the unAmerican Statists in our midst had to shackle us with both the worst of Louisianan's Justinian code (anathema) and the worst registration customs of the Admiralty, (that should rightly be countermanded) at the same time, voiding the best aspects of the Common Law; and then add insult to injury shackle us further with the "rational administrative state" indignity of an unaccountable DMV in every State, county, parish, and district. Take a number please, comrade serf.

Narland wrote:stuff

I completely disagree.

Carrying a driver’s license while out on the road is essential as it allows police officers to identify them. Obviously, police officers need to know who drivers are as they could have a criminal warrant, suspended license (so as to have been proven to not have exhibited the competency needed to drive), etcetera.

Driving is not a right (obviously not; since elected officials are always exempt from these notions meant to guarantee human rights). It is a privilege awarded to you by the state by showing you are capable of driving. Driving is serious; more than enough people die on the road and to say we shouldn’t have to carry licenses while driving because “the DMV has us in shackles” is ludicrous (and hilarious).

I watched a video on South Africa and the guy said that the main driver of crime is income inequality rather than poverty, anyone have any thoughts on it? Seems to line up fairly well with reality

Rateria

Driver's licenses prevent nothing

Narland

Auxorii wrote:I completely disagree.

Carrying a driver’s license while out on the road is essential as it allows police officers to identify them. Obviously, police officers need to know who drivers are as they could have a criminal warrant, suspended license (so as to have been proven to not have exhibited the competency needed to drive), etcetera.

Driving is not a right (obviously not; since elected officials are always exempt from these notions meant to guarantee human rights). It is a privilege awarded to you by the state by showing you are capable of driving. Driving is serious; more than enough people die on the road and to say we shouldn’t have to carry licenses while driving because “the DMV has us in shackles” is ludicrous (and hilarious).

Have you ever endured taking a number at a US DMV? Have you ever tried to explain to them that a legal residence as defined by US Law is in violation of their regulatory statutes, and have them say, they do not care what US Law and State Law provide, that following their contradictory regulations are more important than following US/State Law? And that if one does not follow their instructions (in violation of US/State Law) one cannot receive their "service" in order to "legitimize" one's right to travel unmolested? Not to mention the produce vehicles for local transport, but after spending $10000 dollars on an attorney, have them say, they will grant me "special dispensation" to follow the damned laws, but not anyone else. Everyone else has to pay for the right to not be harassed by their petty BS? Probably not. But then you probably live in a country that was set up as a police state from the start. The US was not so.

In the US, travelling by the most common means of conveyance is one of the innumerate rights. What the courts have also upheld is that commerce is regulatable. An automobile used for person or trade, is by legal definition not commerce -- I have a right to be secure in my persons and papers from any and all unreasonable searches and seizures in the exercising of my right.

In US Law a conveyance used for commerce (taxicab, semi-truck, UPS van) is a vehicle. it doesn't matter if it is a hansom, an oxcart, a trailer, a pickup truck, or a automobile. What happened (like all swindlers do) is changing the definition so that all conveyances on the road are redefined as vehicles and thus subject to commercial regulation. Why am I even typing the history of my State? You are probably not interested, as you have no skin in the game. I am not a good little sheep who doesn't bleet when sheered by police state action. I would encourage you not to be so either, but to live free as possible in accords with your conscience.

Criminals need to be caught justly, and squarely within the bounds of the Law. The nation that does not do so is a dangerous police state who deserve the tumult and unrest they bring upon themselves on their march to failure. I do not care how good the excuse to violate and molest the otherwise Law abiding Citizenry is. Once the taste of unmitigated power is felt, history shows that (unless interrupted by revolution, total reformation, or revival) the abuse increases to the maximum extent until the people break and are thus fully subjugated. If the police cannot do their jobs lawfully, they are criminals who need to be punished for their abuse and hanged in the public square like any other common felon who has declared by his action he is not fit to lawfully participate in society.

Either the people are the police (as every State Constitution declares), or the police are separate from and above the people. The former is Liberty the latter is is tyranny.

Police who are peace officers and do their jobs accordingly are public servants who deserve our respect and our compassion; as they are doing our jobs that we have delegated for them to do so we can be more free to pursue our happiness. This is good. This is American.

Police who are law enforcement agents are betraying their oath of office (to support and defend the Constitution of the US and the State (the purpose to wit, is to shackle government and secure everyone's rights)) in which they serve to enforce the property rights in general and incidentally increase revenue for the State . This is bad. This is despotism.

In a free country a person is who they say they are, as long as they commit no crime. In a police state you are who the state says you are, regardless. If they have the authority to define who you are, it follows that they have the "legal" obligation to define what you are -- be it a person or not. If I am living my life lawfully (not defrauding or coercing anyone else) it is nobody's business who I am, especially to that State that has lost interest in defending me from force or fraud from itself.

Don't be ridiculous. A legal privilege (in the US anyway) is an elevated right -- not the dumbed-down Marxist-speak of unmerited entitlement. If I had an elevated right to drive I would not need a bloody licence, and could commandeer the police to escort me at high speed wherever I needed to go. Neither a right or a privilege by definition can be licenced as license is a deprivation of liberty. And yes, the US Supreme Court has ruled that driving is a right, and not a privilege because they were using the legal definitions, not googlified newspeak.

Mandatory drivers licences do not prevent anything. They merely hinder lawful people from going about their business in a free and legal manner. Criminals will always find ways to circumvent the law (and regulatory statutes whether lawful or not, whether legitimate or not) including cloning someone else's driver's license, shooting the police officer when pulled over, or just stealing someone else's car.

This topic is not the same as fitness to drive, which is incumbent under penalty of Law (capital L) of the person to assess before grabbing the keys. Those who demonstrate fitness by their driving need to be let be. Those who are impaired need to be removed from the road until (or if) their condition improves. This is a very different subject than sweeping mandatory driver's licences.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Miri Islands wrote:I watched a video on South Africa and the guy said that the main driver of crime is income inequality rather than poverty, anyone have any thoughts on it? Seems to line up fairly well with reality

If the nation teaches prejudice, bigotry and hatred by economic status, for the rich to hate the poor and the poor to hate the rich is business as usual. It won't matter how opulent or destitute the society, the relatively poor with think they have the right to stick it to the relatively rich and the relatively rich will think they can oppress the relatively poor. If the nation teaches liberty and equality with liberality (classical liberalism -- not illiberally such as US 21st Century liberals are), rich and poor can and do coexist to the benefit each other in forbearance and gratitude. Americans of all economic strata historically have generally helped each other, such as the Year Without Summer, the San Fran Earthquake, and the Great Depression.

Crime and poverty are not mutually necessary (logistically speaking). Stealing food for hunger sake of one's children no jury should convict, but is usually unnecessary in the US where our food banks overflow, and a meal (for a family that is truly hungry) is only a church/synagogue away. This has nearly always been so in the US.

Indigence has its own natural order (ask any professional Hobo), and the willingly indigent (until the 1970s) had their own society and in areas of greater density the peace officers had special training in dealing with such. The unwilling indigent have been treated with charity (self-sacrifice of others) to help them out of their indigent state by every county and parish, almost every denomination, and numerous benevolent societies.

Stealing the latest, largest highest def wall monitor/television because one is entitled by their "poverty" is malice and contempt for others. Doing the same because one is a spoiled rich snowfake is malice and contempt for others. Both should get the same punishment regardless of economic status. This is equality at its finest.

Inattentiveness (legal sense), wanton recklessness, malice, willful ignorance etc., in respecting the rights of others is the root cause of crime regardless of race, creed, color, sex, and religion; and always has been. Marxists need to cleave asunder societal cohesion in order to implement their dialectic determinism to subjugate the whole of the People. A free and happy society that is unassuming and gracious has very little crime comparatively. A spiteful society magnitudes more so.

Miri Islands

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Stupid people:

Drivers licences are evil, but the state should be able to able to extort foreign businesses who wish to freely trade their goods and services, and the government has the duty to stop brown people who've committed no crime from traveling to and fro because their crime is apparently traveling to and fro.

muh culture

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Stupid people:

Drivers licences are evil, but the state should be able to able to extort foreign businesses who wish to freely trade their goods and services, and the government has the duty to stop brown people who've committed no crime from traveling to and fro because their crime is apparently traveling to and fro.

Who said anything like that?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Anyone who's opposed driver's licences, and yet thinks its a legitimate role of government to enforce protectionism and combat "illegal immigration".

Ah, I see I've been summoned. First of all, generally I'm against protectionism when it comes to the United States trying to impose it's will on other countries' domestic policy or any actions that don't directly involve the United States. The ONLY time I've been amenable to protectionism is in reaction to protectionism from others. I'm not willing to let the United States be extorted. If a foreign power is robbing the United States via tariffs, we have every right to either enact policy of our own to make the trade fair again, or cease the trade entirely.

It legitimately irritates me at this point when you accuse people who are against open borders of "hating brown people." We've had this conversation SEVERAL times. Not only that, but people who push the narrative that wanting to curtail illegal immigration is tantamount to racism are eventually going to put those of us who actually have "brown" family members and who are also conservative when it comes to borders, in some very uncomfortable and unjustified conversations. If my sister ever got it in her head that I hate her because I'm against illegal immigration, it'll be partially due to the rhetoric you're using. CEASE.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland, Miri Islands

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Anyone who's opposed driver's licences, and yet thinks its a legitimate role of government to enforce protectionism and combat "illegal immigration".

I am trying to understand regarding the previous post. It sounded jaundiced or perhaps too much Marx-in-middle-school. The institutes of Americanism are not predicated on race (like most other nations) but upon the notion of constitutional governance, natural law, and social (the opposite of Socialist) contract. This must be taught and inculcated as it is foreign to what most of the world throughout history has experienced, and even today. Nobody just happens upon Liberty by accident. It must be cultivated, and at that was cultivated from the hard learned lessons from centuries of unbroken tyranny.

One of the appropriate roles of government, whether self, local, or instituted is repulsion of invaders and orderly conversion of foreigners into society via citizenship. People either come here to become Americans (and accede to the concepts of Liberty and Equality), or they come here to displace Americans (and accede to the concepts of Liberty and Equality). Those who come here to displace Americans (alien residents) have no reason to not be supervised. Those who do not accede to Liberty and Equality have no place here.

Like it or not, the only constitutionally lawful blanket means of funding the federal government is the tariff. Labeling a Constitutional means of appropriation as protectionism (which, agreed for its own sake is abhorrent) is disingenuous. Personally, I would like to limit the funding of the Federal Government to a flat 3% blanket one time Tariff on all import and export (as it forces Congress to raise its income by promoting free enterprise commerce). The greedier the Federal bureaucracy the more they have to let the free market play out by not over-regulating. The more ambitious (power-mad) the Federal bureaucracy the more apparent their harm (especially upon the poor). But we know that (relegating the Federal swamp to 3% once-time tariff only) will (probably) never happen.

The New United States

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Stupid people:

Drivers licences are evil, but the state should be able to able to extort foreign businesses who wish to freely trade their goods and services, and the government has the duty to stop brown people who've committed no crime from traveling to and fro because their crime is apparently traveling to and fro.

"Foreign business who wish to freely trade their goods and services"

Buddy, Chinese state-owned enterprises are nor "freely" doing anything. They are mercantilist government monopolies that are operating at an artificial advantage.

And every country in the world has borders, so despite your absurd caricature there's nothing you can say to make border enforcement seem unreasonable.

Miencraft, The New United States, The United States Of Patriots

Pevvania wrote:"Foreign business who wish to freely trade their goods and services"

Buddy, Chinese state-owned enterprises are nor "freely" doing anything. They are mercantilist government monopolies that are operating at an artificial advantage.

And every country in the world has borders, so despite your absurd caricature there's nothing you can say to make border enforcement seem unreasonable.

A people occupying a certain territory having any say in who or what enters their community? Sounds like WHITE SUPREMACY.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland, The United States Of Patriots, Skaveria, Kongeriget Island

Imagine thinking that it's racist to want to make sure that if people want to get to a place they need to go through a process to confirm that they're meant to be in that place.

Pevvania, Narland, The New United States, Muh Roads, The United States Of Patriots, Skaveria, Miri Islands

Miri Islands wrote:I watched a video on South Africa and the guy said that the main driver of crime is income inequality rather than poverty, anyone have any thoughts on it? Seems to line up fairly well with reality

The main driver of crime in South Africa is the racial divide, nothing more, nothing less.

Narland wrote:If the nation teaches prejudice, bigotry and hatred by economic status, for the rich to hate the poor and the poor to hate the rich is business as usual. It won't matter how opulent or destitute the society, the relatively poor with think they have the right to stick it to the relatively rich and the relatively rich will think they can oppress the relatively poor. If the nation teaches liberty and equality with liberality (classical liberalism -- not illiberally such as US 21st Century liberals are), rich and poor can and do coexist to the benefit each other in forbearance and gratitude. Americans of all economic strata historically have generally helped each other, such as the Year Without Summer, the San Fran Earthquake, and the Great Depression.

Crime and poverty are not mutually necessary (logistically speaking). Stealing food for hunger sake of one's children no jury should convict, but is usually unnecessary in the US where our food banks overflow, and a meal (for a family that is truly hungry) is only a church/synagogue away. This has nearly always been so in the US.

Indigence has its own natural order (ask any professional Hobo), and the willingly indigent (until the 1970s) had their own society and in areas of greater density the peace officers had special training in dealing with such. The unwilling indigent have been treated with charity (self-sacrifice of others) to help them out of their indigent state by every county and parish, almost every denomination, and numerous benevolent societies.

Stealing the latest, largest highest def wall monitor/television because one is entitled by their "poverty" is malice and contempt for others. Doing the same because one is a spoiled rich snowfake is malice and contempt for others. Both should get the same punishment regardless of economic status. This is equality at its finest.

Inattentiveness (legal sense), wanton recklessness, malice, willful ignorance etc., in respecting the rights of others is the root cause of crime regardless of race, creed, color, sex, and religion; and always has been. Marxists need to cleave asunder societal cohesion in order to implement their dielectric determinism to subjugate the whole of the People. A free and happy society that is unassuming and gracious has very little crime comparatively. A spiteful society magnitudes more so.

The great irony is that for all these screeds you haven't figured out yet that your ideology and the Marxist's share the same delusion of the psychic unity of humankind.

Also, I'm sure it was autocorrect, but I chuckled a little when I saw you misspelled "dialectical materialism" as "dielectric materialism." It seems that the war on RLC circuits has begun in earnest now.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Tupolite wrote:The main driver of crime in South Africa is the racial divide, nothing more, nothing less.

Totally disagree. The main driver of crime is people being taught to hate others to the point of disrespecting them and their persons, viz., their lives, liberty, property, and rightly formed opinions. All else is extenuating circumstance. No more, no less.

Tupolite wrote:The great irony is that for all these screeds you haven't figured out yet that your ideology and the Marxist's share the same delusion of the psychic unity of humankind.
Sez the guy that cannot figure why his Socialist derived madness of self-contradictory fusion of Syndicalism and Neo-Fascism misses the Marx. ;)

Tupolite wrote:Also, I'm sure it was autocorrect, but I chuckled a little when I saw you misspelled "dialectical materialism" as "dielectric materialism." It seems that the war on RLC circuits has begun in earnest now.

:) Yeah, the autocorrect hates me on this computer. The correction suggestions are in 5pt font and most of the time I just hit the top suggestion. But my favorite dielectric is in contra-gravitic false intelligence fed to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Miencraft, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:I know a lot of conservative Oregonians here in CA that say eastern Oregon is basically Idaho anyway. Nobody outside of Portland likes the way the state is going. I'm fully in favor of them leaving.

Here in CA wot m8? Are you visting?

Muh Roads wrote:Here in CA wot m8? Are you visting?

Lol I've lived here for over two years bro, vibe check

Rateria

When will someone work on our condemnation?

The new Freedom Toons Bloomberg video is hilarious.

Narland, Rateria

Suzi Island wrote:The new Freedom Toons Bloomberg video is hilarious.

rofl. Thank you for sharing that.

I tried to make a point to a friend last week by going through President Trump's First State of the Union Address (via YouTube) with her. No joke, every 3 to 5 minutes was interrupted by a Vote Bloomberg 2020 ad. She was laughing so hard (at my consternation) the point was probably lost; but she did let me put an ad-blocker on her browser.

Suzi Island, Rateria

Narland wrote:rofl. Thank you for sharing that.

I tried to make a point to a friend last week by going through President Trump's First State of the Union Address (via YouTube) with her. No joke, every 3 to 5 minutes was interrupted by a Vote Bloomberg 2020 ad. She was laughing so hard (at my consternation) the point was probably lost; but she did let me put an ad-blocker on her browser.

The only real question between Trump and Bloomberg is whether you want Benyamin Netanyahu or George Soros to receive your tax money.

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