Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Anyway, on another topic....

Where were you before y'all moved to Libertatem? Did you have any positions in your previous region? And why did you come to Libertatem?

I was [nation=short]Lerodan Chinamerica[/nation] a High Council Magistrate of The Coalition Of Governments, a roleplaying region. I was losing the spark (and the time) for roleplaying, and the brass there weren't exactly treating me nicely, so I left to join Libertatem after I'd been impressed by its credentials.

Strangely enough, [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation] was originally my brother's nation. But it fell into disuse, so I took it here to Libertatem.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Anyway, on another topic....

Where were you before y'all moved to Libertatem? Did you have any positions in your previous region? And why did you come to Libertatem?

Believe it or not, I actually found this game because of Runescape.

Some guy decided to start a region that I've long since forgotten the name of, and that's where I lived for quite some time.

I do remember I managed to somehow become Delegate of that region, but I don't think I really did anything. The region became abandoned after a while as people forgot about the game, and I somehow found out about this place. No idea how, but I did. Snabagag was President then, back when it wasn't called President. Good times.

Copy-and-paste from a recent WA proposal:

"UNDERSTANDING that moral decay is affecting the nations of the World Assembly, we hereby propose that certain limitations are imposed on the indecent acts of sexuality.

ASSERTING that international World Assembly code defines homosexuality and bisexuality as:

1. An act of malice against the natural reproductive system.

2. Against the values of the World Assembly and its member states.

3. Unnecessary in the eyes of biology and science.

CREATING an International Bureau of Sexuality (I.B.O.S.), in which the task of defending the reproductive rights between males and females is paramount, and to enforce these three laws:

1. No public education of sexuality regarding acts of homosexuality and bisexuality.

2. Restriction of 'same-sex marriages', allowing only 'civil unions' or less, dependent on the nation in question.

3. Public education on marriage must stress the importance of both a male and female.

DEFINING 'sexuality' as "the biological and reproductive feelings between and man and a woman."

It's entitled "Limitation regarding Sexuality" and it makes me glad that a lot of these resolutions will never get the 60+ approvals they need to enter the queue.

Miencraft wrote:Copy-and-paste from a recent WA proposal:

"UNDERSTANDING that moral decay is affecting the nations of the World Assembly, we hereby propose that certain limitations are imposed on the indecent acts of sexuality.

ASSERTING that international World Assembly code defines homosexuality and bisexuality as:

1. An act of malice against the natural reproductive system.

2. Against the values of the World Assembly and its member states.

3. Unnecessary in the eyes of biology and science.

CREATING an International Bureau of Sexuality (I.B.O.S.), in which the task of defending the reproductive rights between males and females is paramount, and to enforce these three laws:

1. No public education of sexuality regarding acts of homosexuality and bisexuality.

2. Restriction of 'same-sex marriages', allowing only 'civil unions' or less, dependent on the nation in question.

3. Public education on marriage must stress the importance of both a male and female.

DEFINING 'sexuality' as "the biological and reproductive feelings between and man and a woman."

It's entitled "Limitation regarding Sexuality" and it makes me glad that a lot of these resolutions will never get the 60+ approvals they need to enter the queue.

This will never make it to the floor...haha.

Miencraft wrote:Copy-and-paste from a recent WA proposal:

"UNDERSTANDING that moral decay is affecting the nations of the World Assembly, we hereby propose that certain limitations are imposed on the indecent acts of sexuality.

ASSERTING that international World Assembly code defines homosexuality and bisexuality as:

1. An act of malice against the natural reproductive system.

2. Against the values of the World Assembly and its member states.

3. Unnecessary in the eyes of biology and science.

CREATING an International Bureau of Sexuality (I.B.O.S.), in which the task of defending the reproductive rights between males and females is paramount, and to enforce these three laws:

1. No public education of sexuality regarding acts of homosexuality and bisexuality.

2. Restriction of 'same-sex marriages', allowing only 'civil unions' or less, dependent on the nation in question.

3. Public education on marriage must stress the importance of both a male and female.

DEFINING 'sexuality' as "the biological and reproductive feelings between and man and a woman."

It's entitled "Limitation regarding Sexuality" and it makes me glad that a lot of these resolutions will never get the 60+ approvals they need to enter the queue.

Some people

Miencraft wrote:It's entitled "Limitation regarding Sexuality"....

People with those attitudes deserve to end up married to closet-cases.

What about people who identify themselves as a different sex but is still the sex they were born? Ya Ya Ya, I am Lorde, Ya Ya Ya.

We were in school today and one of my friends asked me who I thought was the ugliest woman in the world and I told him it's Justin Bieber.

Nah bieber is not bad. But Michael Obama now she's ugly.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Anyway, on another topic....

Where were you before y'all moved to Libertatem? Did you have any positions in your previous region? And why did you come to Libertatem?

I started NS playing as a now banned (for reasons unbeknownst to me) nation named the white wolf people back in 2011. I played on and off for awhile, never dedicated to a single region until I found Westchester. I quickly became delegate there and helped to establish a better reputation for the region which was regarded to as "immature". Eventually I quit NS, tried to log in again one day and was banned.. so I played on my puppets Lawloslovakia mostly before I founded Muh Roads, and here I am today.

Thinking of [NATION]LAWLOSLOVAKIA[/NATION], HEIL! :P

I find it entertaining that the SC proposal to repeal the condemnation of NK admits, in its own body, that NK has committed a crime worthy of condemnation:

"Acknowledging that North Korea's refound of Slavya is the only noteworthy act contained within SC#158, and aware that, while it is a condemnable act..."

And yet, the author was against the condemnation. I LOL'd ironically.

You can't fix stupid

Baltas Dziguimas Mountains wrote:I find it entertaining that the SC proposal to repeal the condemnation of NK admits, in its own body, that NK has committed a crime worthy of condemnation:

"Acknowledging that North Korea's refound of Slavya is the only noteworthy act contained within SC#158, and aware that, while it is a condemnable act..."

And yet, the author was against the condemnation. I LOL'd ironically.

Meh, I wouldn't worry about it. While the Stalinists in Das Kommune and elsewhere were busy reacting to a measly WA proposal, we planned the invasion of CAPS. So we've drawn a great victory out of this.

The mid-term elections will be upon us in a little over two weeks. How many of you are voting? And who will you be voting for?

Looks like it's time for the flag poll, I guess.

If we were to change the flag, I would either go with No. 4 or Liberosia's flag. But I think we should stick with what we've got.

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:The long road to presidency of Miencraft remembers me a character of a very famous American series about a man who has also been the majority leader, then the vice-president, and then the president after a rapid resignation of the former president...

Who knows what happened in the corridors of the libertatem congress...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoUytTuWyR8

What the hell, Miencraft hasn't killed anyone! XD

I'd also be fine with flag 2 if the anti-communist symbols were eliminated and the background a bit darker blue.

So, what are our thoughts on abortion?

I would like to announce that the BR Amendment has passed through the Board 5-0, according to the poll. Still double checking to check whether the amendment proposal has fulfilled the other constitutional criteria - if so, it's law.

Full on evictionist here. Pro-choice in most cases.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I would like to announce that the BR Amendment has passed through the Board 5-0, according to the poll. Still double checking to check whether the amendment proposal has fulfilled the other constitutional criteria - if so, it's law.

Founder: 1/1

President, Board and Managers: 9/9

House: 9/10*

So yes, it has passed into law.

*I didn't double check citizenry here.

Pevvania wrote:So, what are our thoughts on abortion?

It should not be practiced except in cases of rape or if the potential mother's life is in danger. Should a government have to enforce this by law? Ideally, no, but the current standard is far from ideal.

Pevvania wrote:Founder: 1/1

President, Board and Managers: 9/9

House: 9/10*

So yes, it has passed into law.

*I didn't double check citizenry here.

Just making sure.

I was thinking we could also use Condealism/Pevvania/Snabagag's flag style as a regional flag, which is gold, blue, with a star in some sort of style. Simplistic, clean, and has a sort of tradition here.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Full on evictionist here. Pro-choice in most cases.

I've come to learn that it's a much more complicated issue than I originally thought. It's a wretched practice that feminist culture has disgustingly condensed into something a woman should be proud of. But it should not be illegal, because that would drive women towards unsafe and harmful abortions.

Pevvania wrote:I've come to learn that it's a much more complicated issue than I originally thought. It's a wretched practice that feminist culture has disgustingly condensed into something a woman should be proud of. But it should not be illegal, because that would drive women towards unsafe and harmful abortions.

Agreed. Being proud of an abortion is quite irrational. Even if it is your body, please keep what you do with it to yourself, otherwise the pro-choice movement could find itself losing (of which it is lately)

My stance on abortion, not necessarily a fan of it, but being a libertarian I acknowledge that it is a woman's right and there are cases where it must happen so I don't fight to get it repealed. What I fight is tax payer money going to a woman who decided to be a dead beat with no job who decided to get pregnant because she wasn't smart enough to use protection and she doesn't know who the father is.

My concern is for the lives prematurely ended for the sake of convenience; surely the right of someone whose birth is imminent to live outweighs the right of women not to experience momentary discomfort? Is it rational to trade a life for the whim of a person who is already alive?

I'm aware that there may be more nuanced reasons for someone to get an abortion; however, such reasons are squarely in the minority. Even the most gracious estimates suggest that less than 10% of abortions are performed for the sake of the mother's life, for the sake of the mother's health, at the behest of the father, in cases of rape, and in other such cases where the mother does not want anyone to know she became pregnant - combined. Compare potential mothers who weakly claim they were not prepared for the responsibility of raising a child; you would be hard-pressed to find a poll where that reason alone is not more common than the other five listed, combined.

Pevvania wrote:So, what are our thoughts on abortion?

I'm against it except in the obvious cases. What I think should be done though is to leave it up to individual states to decide.

I never really payed too much attention to this issue.

After much thought, I'm a pro-life libertarian, kind of. If the baby is alive in the womb then I feel abortion is wrong. Obviously, I have no problem with contraceptives.

Abortion, the problem of a libertarian.

The child is not apart of a girls body it's growing inside her. If we allowed girls to have control of everything in her body then a womens partner if male would lose control of his pin*s.

Muh Roads wrote:After much thought, I'm a pro-life libertarian, kind of. If the baby is alive in the womb then I feel abortion is wrong. Obviously, I have no problem with contraceptives.

This^

Pevvania wrote:So, what are our thoughts on abortion?

If it's proven to be rape or is something that could be dangerous to the mother, then one should be able to go ahead with it.

Otherwise, I'd mostly say no, but there are some situations where it could potentially be more beneficial to not have a child, but I'd of course need specific situations to tell you.

Also, unrelated, but I just uncovered my copy of Spore after like a year or two. Forgot how much fun this game is.

Bah. All of you are closet conservatives. >=(

The rights-based argument for abortion, from a libertarian perspective, is blurry and controversial. Going on natural rights/self-ownership theory, there are two equally compelling arguments: one of them is that the baby is an individual human being independent of its mother that has the right to self-ownership, and therefore the right to life. The Rothbardian argument recognises that the baby is an individual and a potential self-owner, but because its existence is dependent upon the mother, who is also a self-owner that has the right to terminate a pregnancy that she has created.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Bah. All of you are closet conservatives. >=(

Not at all. Being against abortion is consistent with the universal life ethic.

I just don't want taxpayer money going to it

You would not murder your fellow man if he were a man, or a teen, or a boy, or especially a baby. Why would you murder him before he reaches that point? Such aggression is an infringement upon their natural rights.

You cannot murder that which is not human.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:You cannot murder that which is not human.

I'm sorry Minerva but that statement is just vile. What is and what is not human should not be determined by the emotional tendencies of abortion advocates. I am not insinuating that your argument is emotion-based, but I've noticed that abortionists often use the "they're not really human" argument to justify abortion "rights". Whether or not the right to an abortion is legitimate or not, a baby is a baby, whether or not it has seen the light of day.

Also, fetuses have been born as early as 21 weeks premature and gone on to live healthy, happy lives. They develop brains and hearts within the first trimester.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:You cannot murder that which is not human.

What measure is a non-human? A person in the process of becoming born is still a person - life does not begin right after having finished traversal of some person's reproductive organs.

An unborn child has human features and human parents, and is to be born as a human in a few months' time. How is aborting it not equivalent to murder?

To [nation=short]Soviet East Japan[/nation]:

None of these are concrete arguments against libertarianism, but I shall debunk them nonetheless.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22374-the-failed-libertarian-experiment-in-chile

The author of this article just loves cherry-picking data.

"The democratically elected socialist president, Salvador Allende, nationalized big businesses and gave every Chilean access to free healthcare and higher education. GDP went up and income inequality went down."

GDP going up is hardly remarkable of any economy. It usually always happening, except in times of recession. What the author doesn't mention is slightly less than flattering for Allende. From 1971 to 1973, according to World Bank statistics, annual GDP growth averaged 1.1%. There was crushing contraction of -4.9% in 1972, and the inflationary quagmire that Allende created caused an even more severe recession in 1975, which was admittedly under Pinochet's rule, but the damage he caused had already been done. Mean average GDP growth during Pinochet was 4.1%. Allende's economic policies caused incomes to stagnate and inflation to soar to nearly 600% in 1973. Exports were reduced by 25% due to a disastrous nationalisation of the copper industry, and food shortages led to basic goods like flour, sugar, and bread to nearly disappear from grocery shelves. Meanwhile, debt and the government budget deficit exploded. He devastated the economy.

"As I pointed out in my book The Crash of 2016, inflation reached as high as 341 percent, GDP decreased by 15 percent and Chile’s trade deficit ballooned to a whopping $280 million. Unemployment jumped from 3 percent to 10 percent - and in some parts of the country climbed as high as 22 percent."

More cherry-picking using misleading data. What this author is really referring to is one specific recession, so in other words they can't back up their argument with data from the rest of Pinochet's presidency, because it contradicts his or her socialist beliefs.

And I am in no way a Pinochet apologist, but the economic policies followed by his government were sound. inflation declined enormously in the 70s, never to be heard from again after 1980. GDP per capita has increased by 960% since 1973, saving and investment surged, poverty fell from around 60% in the early 70s to 20% in 2000*, public debt is near-nonexistent, consumption soared, wages have increased dramatically, the labour force has expanded and government is small. Also, Chile has world-class unemployment benefits, retirement, healthcare and education systems. There's a reason they call it 'the Miracle of Chile'. I attribute all of this to Pinochet. Why? Because successive governments have expanded and preserved his free-market reforms.

*Much of this occurred under successive administrations, but apparently around 60% of the reduction in poverty has been attributed to the neoliberal reforms. http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Successes_and_Failures_in_Poverty_Eradication__Chile.pdf

Regarding the Iceland article, this proves nothing either. It's an extremely weak case against liberalism. The article concedes that in the years following liberal economic reforms, the country saw very high growth, but then this stopped when the Great Recession hit. So the author is either blaming Iceland's economy for the Great Recession, or making some flimsy case against the free market by pressing that it cannot guard against recessions, which is ridiculous. So that's not an argument.

The third "source" is so braindead stupid and full of straw men that it's not even worth responding to.

Hope I shed some light on things.

Also, the recession that the Chile article is referring to was caused for a very specific reason: the decision to tie the Chilean peso to the US dollar. Since the US economy, and hence the dollar, crashed in 1982, the same happened to Chile. Fixed exchange rates was something that Milton Friedman specifically advised against. So you might as well blame Ronald Reagan and Paul Volcker for the 1982 Chile recession.

On a different subject: I assume all or most of you are gun owners. What kind of metal do you pack?

I don't own any guns. I'd rather see their numbers reduced voluntarily, but I oppose gun control on principle.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I don't own any guns. I'd rather see their numbers reduced voluntarily, but I oppose gun control on principle.

I am a very strong gun rights supporter, and I try to acquire whatever weapons I can legally get my hands on in Britain. In fact, I'm asked regularly about my position on gun rights, because it's just so alien in where I live.

No one wants the Republican movement to rebel against the queen. :) once a government takes your arms; they can take your rights.

Pevvania wrote:On a different subject: I assume all or most of you are gun owners. What kind of metal do you pack?

I don't own a gun (yet, I know exactly where a gun shop is though, and I should probably go down and get one or two or ten some day soon), but I do have a very nice leaf-blade sword.

Probably won't do much, but it'll scare people off, and that's all I really need to do.

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Pevvania wrote:On a different subject: I assume all or most of you are gun owners. What kind of metal do you pack?

I have two 20s for coons and other pests. I got a 32 police standard for security and 44 revolver for show. The 44 is my dad's but I still enjoy shooting it. I may be a Democrat, but I live on a farm. I understand security.

Pevvania wrote:On a different subject: I assume all or most of you are gun owners. What kind of metal do you pack?
A western field 12 gauge double side by side, two marlin model 60 semi auto .22s, a savage arms 20 gauge double side by side, MAS 1873 revolver, ruger single six "old model" .22 mag, Browning BPR pump action 30-06, and a damn near 100 year old .22 sears ranger rifle that still fires excellently.

Muh Roads wrote:A western field 12 gauge double side by side, two marlin model 60 semi auto .22s, a savage arms 20 gauge double side by side, MAS 1873 revolver, ruger single six "old model" .22 mag, Browning BPR pump action 30-06, and a damn near 100 year old .22 sears ranger rifle that still fires excellently.

... wow

I have my 12 gauge double side by side in case someone tries to visit at night.

Jambion wrote:... wow

I like guns lol I want more, really really want an AK-47.

Muh Roads wrote:I like guns lol I want more, really really want an AK-47.

No one will visit Muh anytime soon.

[quote=right-winged_nation;8174960]No one will visit Muh anytime soon.[/ quote]

Psssh, I'm harmless :p your all invited anytime come have supper with us :)

[quote=muh_roads;8175040][quote=right-winged_nation;8174960]No one will visit Muh anytime soon.[/ quote]

Psssh, I'm harmless :p your all invited anytime come have supper with us :)[/quote]

Hmm, I imagine a nice home cooked meal

Yeah... it's time.

I am currently reading The Prince by...that Italian guy..

The State Of Deseret wrote:Yeah... it's time.

I am currently reading The Prince by...that Italian guy..

Machiavelli, I believe.

The State Of Deseret wrote:Yeah... it's time.

I am currently reading The Prince by...that Italian guy..

I have an odd suspicion that you are TTA.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:I have an odd suspicion that you are TTA.

What set that off? The Mormonism or the "This is time"

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Machiavelli, I believe.

Yes him.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:I have an odd suspicion that you are TTA.

He is TTA.

So there's a WA proposal called "Syrian Refugee Crisis" that seeks to do... something... regarding ISIS.

Looks like someone forgot that this is a game...

Post self-deleted by The Ilerminaty.

I am an anti-communist, pro-capitalist, libertarian redditor... AMA

The Ilerminaty wrote:I am an anti-communist, pro-capitalist, libertarian redditor... AMA

I'm Deseret.

The Libertarian Economic Interventionist Nationalistic Mormon.

The State Of Deseret wrote:I'm Deseret.

The Libertarian Economic Interventionist Nationalistic Mormon.

None of those make sense. Save maybe "Mormon."

Anyway, I am a minarchist, bleeding heart libertarian, Hayekian/Friedmanite economically with Nozickian leanings in philosophy.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:None of those make sense. Save maybe "Mormon."

I'm libertarian mostly.

I prefer some intervention economically

and America needs to control the whole continent.

Post by The Gallifreyan Translation Unit suppressed by a moderator.

The State Of Deseret wrote:Yeah... it's time.

I am currently reading The Prince by...that Italian guy..

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Machiavelli, I believe.

He is among the most authoritarian, yet cowardly, POS that I know, who literally kissed up to his enemies in vain. Had he not written any of those ideas, then I truly believe that our government wouldn't be as bad as it is now. We wouldn't have Bismarck, Hitler, Lenin, or Stalin follow on the more modern Machiavellian principle of Realpolitik. We wouldn't have people agreeing that politicians should be able to seek as much authority and control.

The end does not justify the means... unless, maybe, something justifies the end. It is better to be loved than feared. A capable leader must act with cunning, yes, but not with force.

"People will inevitably lie to you, so it is, therefore, acceptable for you to lie to them." - Kant would disagree.

His famous quote of trusting no one would only prove that he is nothing but a paranoid little tyrant, if only he were a tyrant rather than an exile.

The State Of Deseret wrote:I'm libertarian mostly.

I prefer some intervention economically

[B]and America needs to control the whole continent.[/B]

wat

The Gallifreyan Translation Unit wrote:[B]Hello!

I am the travelling Gallifreyan translation unit.[/B]

I am able to translate most texts into Gallifreyan. If you would like some text translated please send me a telegram.

Examples of Gallifreyan can be seen below (Not produced by this unit)

http://i.imgur.com/LZMTLRp.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/9iQf0UL.jpg

Words/Short phrases preferred. Does not have to be a real word. Longer sentences may take a while to be produced and, while this unit tries to maintain a low failure rate, mistakes happen and full translations not guaranteed. This unit reserves the right to refuse inappropriate requests or requests that are too long.

Dafuq?

The State Of Deseret wrote:I'm libertarian mostly.

I prefer some intervention economically

and America needs to control the whole continent.

You must enjoy the Illuminati's goals, then.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:wat

Except the South States and Deseret.

The Amarican Empire wrote:No one wants the Republican movement to rebel against the queen. :) once a government takes your arms; they can take your rights.

A government can only take away any rights that they give you.

What I truly hate about the American principle of gun control is the paranoia of the left and the right in terms of giving and taking people's rights to control arms. The worst part is the reality, the paranoia of the federal government to give the states the right to maintain militias, which in turn would allow the right to bear arms to differ by state (which is inconvenient, but better than what will happen within the next decades). That is why gun control was not made an issue until recently, way after the Federalists and their bunch eliminated the states' power to control the militia. After the more modern Federalists made state's rights a taboo subject after the Civil War.

They use fear and conflict as a means to justify the elimination of the rights that we were given.

I am sure someone will find it offensive, but, in the way that I see it, the Government has been an Indian giver when it comes to rights.

Umm, Hi everyone I'm new here :)

Post self-deleted by The Ilerminaty.

I came here because your tag was Libertarian, to what extent do you guys believe in Libertarianism?

http://imgur.com/r/ilerminaty/HeceekB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAnnR5Y7klc

http://imgur.com/rRyislT?#

WAKE UP!

Im not illuminati :P

Tahatan wrote:I came here because your tag was Libertarian, to what extent do you guys believe in Libertarianism?

We have a wide degree of libertarians here; our primary purpose, however, is procuring a battle against authoritarian statism in the game, mostly stalinistic communism.

Liberosia wrote:We have a wide degree of libertarians here; our primary purpose, however, is procuring a battle against authoritarian statism in the game, mostly stalinistic communism.

Why don't you fight all forms of communism, even the oxymoron of "libertarian communism", which is either not libertarian or not communism?

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

The Ilerminaty wrote:Why don't you fight all forms of communism, even the oxymoron of "libertarian communism", which is either not libertarian or not communism?

Might I direct you to our friends in The Communist Bloc to help answer this question?

Miencraft wrote:Might I direct you to our friends in The Communist Bloc to help answer this question?

Are they both libertarian and communists? If they are not libertarian, then why do we not fight them? If they are not communists, then why do they tarnish their image by naming themselves communist?

The Ilerminaty wrote:If they are not libertarian, then why do we not fight them? If they are not communists, then why do they tarnish their image by naming themselves communist?

1) Because they aren't a threat to us.

2) Because that's what they wanted to do. Left unity is a myth anyways.

Wait! If they are neither libertarian nor communist then what are they?

Fascists?

The Ilerminaty wrote:Wait! If they are neither libertarian nor communist then what are they?

Fascists?

That would be up to them.

And there's more to ideology than those few extremes, you know (yes, it gets more extreme than libertarian, but libertarian is already pretty far in the "muh freedom" direction).

Sorry for double posting or jumping to conclusions.

It may be possible that they are liberal authoritarian capitalists who brand themselves with a communist label. It could also be possible that they are monarchists, fascists, and other authoritarian and anti-communist types.

The Ilerminaty wrote:Sorry for double posting or jumping to conclusions.

It may be possible that they are liberal authoritarian capitalists who brand themselves with a communist label. It could also be possible that they are monarchists, fascists, and other authoritarian and anti-communist types.

The way I see it, they're likely open-minded anti-totalitarian communists. That's how most of our communist friends are, anyways.

And by they, I'd like to specify their administration. I've seen a lot of stuff around there about "Why are we opening embassies with Libertatem" and "Why are we opening embassies with Libertatem" and "Why do we have embassies with Libertatem", but given what I've seen about how their region works, I think that might just be the vocal minority.

Miencraft wrote:The way I see it, they're likely open-minded anti-totalitarian communists. That's how most of our communist friends are, anyways.

But, then... that cannot really exist...

If you are either an anti-totalitarian or a communist, you cannot be open-minded. I doubt they would like the presence of a fascist or some sort of authoritarian capitalist system (i.e. Monarchy).

The Ilerminaty wrote:But, then... that cannot really exist...

If you are either an anti-totalitarian or a communist, you cannot be open-minded. I doubt they would like the presence of a fascist or some sort of authoritarian capitalist system (i.e. Monarchy).

We're anti-totalitarian as well. Most of us would agree that we don't like fascists. If we were to have a fascist here, though, then we'd just let them stay here because we're not assholes.

Same thing with TCB. They might not like ideologies that aren't theirs, but they'll let 'em be there because they're tolerant. It's right in their WFE.

Miencraft wrote:We're anti-totalitarian as well. Most of us would agree that we don't like fascists. If we were to have a fascist here, though, then we'd just let them stay here because we're not assholes.

Same thing with TCB. They might not like ideologies that aren't theirs, but they'll let 'em be there because they're tolerant. It's right in their WFE.

Suppose I were the most despicable man on Earth, would you or they allow me to stay?

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