Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:The way you said it sounded like you were dedicated to the evil side of Anti-Communism and war crimes.

Humpheria wrote:"You made a grammatical error, therefore your entire argument is invalid. You're*

What about Fascism?

Do we accept it? Support it? Attack it or just not care?

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:I'm on niether side, bith are wring and both need to stop; however I can only change the Libertatem side and hope the Commies then follow suit.

"I'm going to join anti-leftist military region so that I can stop the anti-leftist military region from performing the duties of an anti-leftist military region, and I sure hope that all of the blood-thirsty militant-reds inexplicably stop destroying our allies. ;) "

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:What about Fascism?

Do we accept it? Support it? Attack it or just not care?

I don't like it, but unlike some people, I don't attempt to dictate my own beliefs as the consensus of the region.

My administration opposed it, I don't know about President Miencraft's.

The New United States wrote:"I'm going to join anti-leftist military region so that I can stop the anti-leftist military region from performing the duties of an anti-leftist military region, and I sure hope that all of the blood-thirsty militant-reds inexplicably stop destroying our allies. ;) "

TNUS for prez

WAIT A FLAGITTY FLOOGITTY MINUTE!

No Humpheria Day? *clicks tongue like a chica* Ooookay

The New United States wrote:"I'm going to join anti-leftist military region so that I can stop the anti-leftist military region from performing the duties of an anti-leftist military region, and I sure hope that all of the blood-thirsty militant-reds inexplicably stop destroying our allies. ;) "

It sounds bad when you put it that way...but yes.

Humpheria wrote:I don't like it, but unlike some people, I don't attempt to dictate my own beliefs as the consensus of the region.

My administration opposed it, I don't know about President Miencraft's.

We're working to make some official moves against fascism, but progress is slow in light of the brutal victory in CAPS.

Humpheria wrote:WAIT A FLAGITTY FLOOGITTY MINUTE!

No Humpheria Day? *clicks tongue like a chica* Ooookay

Let me just retreat to this closet for a minute...

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Imperfect= I'm Perfect

https://imgflip.com/i/dy7bb

Hey guys. Anyone heard about Macaulay Culkin's death? Very sad.

So, what's been happening around here?

I highly urge the Board to consider a vote to eliminate Humpy's wait time.

Pevvania wrote:Hey guys. Anyone heard about Macaulay Culkin's death? Very sad.

So, what's been happening around here?

I posted stuff in the news

and I announced the DRP would re-open. I'm going to send you a short description to add it in. Colors will be Light blue.

Miencraft wrote:I highly urge the Board to consider a vote to eliminate Humpy's wait time.

^ Ya know, I was just President and TTA hasn't even been on the Board. But who's counting, amirite?

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:It sounds bad when you put it that way...but yes.

Indeed, Libertatem conceding to the commie-hordes would be no different than (insert whatever active defender group here) surrendering to the Black Riders, hoping that TBR would halt their rampage. It would not.

The reds do not fight as a reaction to the forces of Libertatem, they fight in order to advance their imbecilic, irrational ideology throughout NationStates. Therefore, any surrender on the part of Libertatem would do nothing for the advancement of peace in NS, rather, it would create an environment more conducive to the criminal activities perpetrated by the idiots that you wish to surrender to.

Humpheria wrote:^ Ya know, I was just President and TTA hasn't even been on the Board. But who's counting, amirite?

You can stop campaigning now, Obama.

Anywhat, seriously, guys, do that.

Top lel at the news. Haven't read it as I'm on tablet, but I find TTA's latest "Communist sympathiser" phase amusing nonetheless.

And another thing, TTA: a libertarian cannot be an economic interventionist. Left-"libertarianism" is a concept about as coherent as anarcho-fascism.

Pevvania wrote:Top lel at the news. Haven't read it as I'm on tablet, but I find TTA's latest "Communist sympathiser" phase amusing nonetheless.

And another thing, TTA: a libertarian cannot be an economic interventionist. Left-"libertarianism" is a concept about as coherent as anarcho-fascism.

Then I'm socially Libertarian....

No yoi know what screw labels.

Social Libertarian

Economical interventionist

There! Whatever.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Then I'm socially Libertarian....

No yoi know what screw labels.

Social Libertarian

Economical interventionist

There! Whatever.

Just call yourself a "Time Alliancist".

Miencraft wrote:Just call yourself a "Time Alliancist".

I make up my own Ideology...

Moderate Libertarian.

Done. I win. If there's Left-Libertarians and Libertarians.

Then I can make Moderate ones.

Also. Pev. Left-Libertarian isn't that Incoherent. We don't own the definition. People can change definitions and edit ideologies.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:I make up my own Ideology...

Moderate Libertarian.

Done. I win. If there's Left-Libertarians and Libertarians.

Then I can make Moderate ones.

Also. Pev. Left-Libertarian isn't that Incoherent. We don't own the definition. People can change definitions and edit ideologies.

I think the only kind of left-libertarian is someone like NST in the AAA - someone who does not believe in compelling others to follow their economic beliefs. But people like Noam Chomsky and Bernie Sanders are about as "libertarian" as Adolf Hitler.

We don't own the label, but I feel that until we get liberal back from the Democrats, it describes us quite well. But fundamentally, it comes down to this: if you believe in expanding the use of force in society, then you do not believe in liberty.

Pevvania wrote:I think the only kind of left-libertarian is someone like NST in the AAA - someone who does not believe in compelling others to follow their economic beliefs. But people like Noam Chomsky and Bernie Sanders are about as "libertarian" as Adolf Hitler.

We don't own the label, but I feel that until we get liberal back from the Democrats, it describes us quite well. But fundamentally, it comes down to this: if you believe in expanding the use of force in society, then you do not believe in liberty.

Look. No one owns labels. That's why you can't use those outbound labels because there's no room for one small difference.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Look. No one owns labels. That's why you can't use those outbound labels because there's no room for one small difference.

Okay then, what does libertarian mean to you, aside from the belief in liberty?

Pevvania wrote:Okay then, what does libertarian mean to you, aside from the belief in liberty?

Libertarian is someone who believes in the freedom of man from exploitation by another man.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Libertarian is someone who believes in the freedom of man from exploitation by another man.

Exploitation comes in many forms.

From an employer

From a Government

From another citizen of a nation

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Exploitation comes in many forms.

From an employer

From a Government

From another citizen of a nation

How can an employee exploit anyone through a voluntary transaction? Is it better for a worker to die on the street than to accept less compensation than you want him to?

And how can you stop exploitation by doing more of it at the hands of the state?

Pevvania wrote:How can an employee exploit anyone through a voluntary transaction? Is it better for a worker to die on the street than to accept less compensation than you want him to?

And how can you stop exploitation by doing more of it at the hands of the state?

Employers can force them just like the Government. They can use force against the Employee as well. Is it better to assume all employees are voluntary?

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Employers can force them just like the Government. They can use force against the Employee as well. Is it better to assume all employees are voluntary?

What are you talking about? I'm not aware of any employers that force anypne to do anything - except the state, that is.

All voluntary interactions that occur in a free market are mutually beneficial.

Pevvania wrote:What are you talking about? I'm not aware of any employers that force anypne to do anything - except the state, that is.

All Employers y interactions that occur in a free market are mutually beneficial.

Employers can threaten and abuse employees. Now. I'm not sure of any that do but you have to take into account the fact anything can happen. Think of Employers in other countries and before labor laws came into affect.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Employers can threaten and abuse employees. Now. I'm not sure of any that do but you have to take into account the fact anything can happen. Think of Employers in other countries and before labor laws came into affect.

Aliens can invade the planet. I'm not sure of any that have, but we need to spend money on protecting ourselves from them.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Employers can force them just like the Government. They can use force against the Employee as well. Is it better to assume all employees are voluntary?

And in what society are people not 'exploited' in some way? In the Soviet Union, the communist commissars ate caviar and drank champagne while the average working man stood in line for hours waiting for toilet paper. In North Korea, the ruling elite drive fast cars while those outside the 'loyal' class survive on grass clippings. In China during the Cultural Revolution, an entire class of intellectuals, teachers, artists, and engineers were exterminated on the whim of the chairman.

The simple fact is that the poorer people in capitalist societies have consistently had a better lot than the average man in the 2nd and 3rd worlds. It is also a fact that removing controls on private enterprise have resulted in billions of people being lifted out of poverty, such as in China, India, or Vietnam.

This is an oldie but a goodie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ0-cDKMS5M

Miencraft wrote:Aliens can invade the planet. I'm not sure of any that have, but we need to spend money on protecting ourselves from them.

...Yeah...darn...you...so much.

Sushi. Employers can pay unfair wages and...no you know what.

I'm ending this.

Defenition: Believer that a man should not be oppressed by another and that everyone should have freedoms unless it involves coercion.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Employers can threaten and abuse employees. Now. I'm not sure of any that do but you have to take into account the fact anything can happen. Think of Employers in other countries and before labor laws came into affect.

You're grasping at straws. Employers can threaten and abuse their employees - so f-cking what? Libertarianism is not "let anyone do what they want", it's "let anyone do what they want unless they're hurting someone". Prosecuting a businessman if they beat their employee is not "economic interventionism" - it is natural justice that is not just consistent with libertarian ideology, but crucial to it.

Funkytopia wrote:And in what society are people not 'exploited' in some way? In the Soviet Union, the communist commissars ate caviar and drank champagne while the average working man stood in line for hours waiting for toilet paper. In North Korea, the ruling elite drive fast cars while those outside the 'loyal' class survive on grass clippings. In China during the Cultural Revolution, an entire class of intellectuals, teachers, artists, and engineers were exterminated on the whim of the chairman.

The simple fact is that the poorer people in capitalist societies have consistently had a better lot than the average man in the 2nd and 3rd worlds. It is also a fact that removing controls on private enterprise have resulted in billions of people being lifted out of poverty, such as in China, India, or Vietnam.

This is an oldie but a goodie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ0-cDKMS5M

You guys seem to think...I hate capitalism...which I don't. It's bettef than leftism, however there need to be restrictions to protect the workers.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:...Yeah...darn...you...so much.

Sushi. Employers can pay unfair wages and...no you know what.

I'm ending this.

Defenition: Believer that a man should not be oppressed by another and that everyone should have freedoms unless it involves coercion.

There is no such thing as "unfair wages". Value is subjective, so all wages that are agreed to in legitimate, voluntary conditions are perfectly fair.

Trying to dictate how much someone else chooses to be compensated is a major violation of workers' rights.

Pevvania wrote:You're grasping at straws. Employers can threaten and abuse their employees - so f-cking what? Libertarianism is not "let anyone do what they want", it's "let anyone do what they want unless they're hurting someone". Prosecuting a businessman if they beat their employee is not "economic interventionism" - it is natural justice that is not just consistent with libertarian ideology, but crucial to it.

Not just beating them you twat.

Abusing them in any way. Capitalism "Leave Alone" style doesn't have these restrictions. Only economic interventionism does.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:You guys seem to think...I hate capitalism...which I don't. It's bettef than leftism, however there need to be restrictions to protect the workers.

What "protections" for workers are needed other than the usual don't steal and kill stuff?

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Not just beating them you twat.

Abusing them in any way. Capitalism "Leave Alone" style doesn't have these restrictions. Only economic interventionism does.

Explain what you mean by abuse.

Pevvania wrote:There is no such thing as "unfair wages". Value is subjective, so all wages that are agreed to in legitimate, voluntary conditions are perfectly fair.

Trying to dictate how much someone else chooses to be compensated is a major violation of workers' rights.

They don't choose though. An employer does.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:They don't choose though. An employer does.

You've got the choice to not work there if you don't like the pay.

Plus there's always at least some room for negotiation.

Pevvania wrote:Explain what you mean by abuse.

Well look at the labour laws we have.

- Laws that Limit the force of Unions.

- Laws enforcing safety regulations for workers.

- Laws limiting Employers infringing on privacy of the worker.

- Laws limiting bussiness from selling products that do not work right and can hurt the consumer.

- Copyright laws.

- Ect.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:They don't choose though. An employer does.

No, they don't. Both parties have an equal say in what the compensation is: if the wage is too low, then the employee will look elsewhere for work, and the company will have to waste more time and money (opportunity cost) looking for labour. If the wage demanded is too high, then the employer will look elsewhere for labour and the worker will have to waste more time and money looking for a job. Finding an equilibrium is beneficial for both parties. The worker gets a job and money, and the employer increases its revenues and productivity as a result of the new employee. In the free market, everybody wins.

Also...Pev bae...telegram...party list...please bae?

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Well look at the labour laws we have.

- Laws that Limit the force of Unions.

- Laws enforcing safety regulations for workers.

- Laws limiting Employers infringing on privacy of the worker.

- Laws limiting bussiness from selling products that do not work right and can hurt the consumer.

- Copyright laws.

- Ect.

1. Unions are fine, but if they're not acting within their rights as property owners, then they can piss off. A unionised workforce is possible within a free market, but usually unneeded. Pro-union legislation just spawns artificial power structures that turn workers' organisations into government-backed cartels.

2. Useless and irrelevant. As you can see under my factbooks, safety legislation has not made a dent in making workers safer. Productivity advances through mechanisation made - and make - workers safer. Happy that you don't have to toil for 16 hours a day in backbreaking agricultural labour like your ancestors? Thank 19th Century capitalism for that, not "safety" laws. Anyway, an unsafe workplace environment is undesirable for all parties. If a worker gets hurt, he can sue the company, which is easier than ever in our Better Call Saul lawyer culture.

3. Don't see much point in these. If a worker agrees to the boss snooping on him, then leave it at that. If not, then their contract is being violated by the employer and he can either leave or use his power as a worker and claimant in a free market to demand thst they stop.

4. Again, this is unneeded for the reasons highlighted above. Lying to customers about products or killing people with them is most certainly not in a company's interests.

5. This one is trickier, and libertarians are divided on this issue. It usually comes down to an intellectual property vs. monopoly argument.

Fundamentally, those who believe that regulation stops employers from becoming evil unaccountable dictators hold a simplistic and unresoned view of the world.

I find that following a thought to its logical conclusion is usually the best way to formulate an opinion.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Also...Pev bae...telegram...party list...please bae?

Yup, will update that tomorrow. But now I will sleep.

Point three is the one I want to focus on.

Back-Breaking labor isn't tbe same as unsafe work conditions.

Who cares if there are new technologies if bussinesses aren't required to use them. That's why you have Health Inspectors. For safety OF consumer and workers.

For the record, I tried a telegram to our chairman to put the vote for humpy in action and he has not responded.

Miencraft wrote:I highly urge the Board to consider a vote to eliminate Humpy's wait time.

We were supposed to elect a chairman, who is Conservative Idealism, according to the late discussion that we had.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:For the record, I tried a telegram to our chairman to put the vote for humpy in action and he has not responded.

You don't need the chairman to vote y'all :]

I recommend we get rid of the wait time unless you are a new individual person.

Tsar on Wars against others.

"There's no point. This, if it does anything at all, perpetuates their resentment of Libertarian ideology. Instead, we must fight Totalitarianism with logic and reason."

The State Of Deseret wrote:Tsar on Wars against others.

"There's no point. This, if it does anything at all, perpetuates their resentment of Libertarian ideology. Instead, we must fight Totalitarianism with logic and reason."

Those who embrace statism usually are not susceptible to "logic and reason," especially those who attempt to impose their idiocy upon others. The only way to defend ourselves is via military power.

The New United States wrote:Those who embrace statism usually are not susceptible to "logic and reason," especially those who attempt to impose their idiocy upon others. The only way to defend ourselves is via military power.

You are an absolute idiot. Also anyone else who aligns with that statement might as well beat themselves.

Northern Prussia wrote:You are an absolute idiot. Also anyone else who aligns with that statement might as well beat themselves.

Thank you. Not all statists are idiots. Many are, but those who actually have reasons behind their statism that are good. Those are the ones you can use logic on.

And as Time says "Take out their Intellectuals the herd can't follow."

In other news I am going to actually think about the Political Ideologies I named :Moderate Libertarianism and Founderism. I'm actually going to type up a thing for each.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:

And as Time says "Take out their Intellectuals the herd can't follow."

You quoted yourself? Get out.

Muh Roads wrote:You quoted yourself? Get out.

No one else to quote.

I tell you that quote'll live on.

Tolerance is completely libertarian, we often lose sight of this when it comes too the state. Statists may not be idiots, but many are hardwired to the idea that life without government can't exist, I think that's what irritates me most.

We all know what's happening now in many government's across the world is not right, we just have differing views on how to solve it. What doesn't make sense to me, is when a authoritarian,complains that the state is not doing enough. Then their solution is too make the government that's not doing anything stronger? It seems counter-intuitive.

Muh Roads wrote:You don't need the chairman to vote y'all :]

So I telegrammed every other board member and none of the responded :(

Muh Roads wrote:Tolerance is completely libertarian, we often lose sight of this when it comes too the state. Statists may not be idiots, but many are hardwired to the idea that life without government can't exist, I think that's what irritates me most.

We all know what's happening now in many government's across the world is not right, we just have differing views on how to solve it. What doesn't make sense to me, is when a authoritarian,complains that the state is not doing enough. Then their solution is too make the government that's not doing anything stronger? It seems counter-intuitive.

Well in all honest. Life without Government would be terrible...ad that means everything is privatized meaning I have to pay for my freedoms to be protected...which makes me dependent...which either dependence on Government ir on Private Services sucks either way.

Miencraft wrote:I highly urge the Board to consider a vote to eliminate Humpy's wait time.

I vote AYE.

As of today, Kanatistan as been confirmed as The Commissioner of The Commonwealth Of Democratic Nations! We hope that the CDN and Libertatem continue to build stronger multilateral relation under his Administration.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:Point three is the one I want to focus on.

Back-Breaking labor isn't tbe same as unsafe work conditions.

Who cares if there are new technologies if bussinesses aren't required to use them. That's why you have Health Inspectors. For safety OF consumer and workers.

That's like saying "businesses making profits is no guarantee because it's not codified by law". It is in the interest a business to mechanise to cut costs, improve productivity and increase profits. Mechanising makes working conditions safer and leads to increases in wages and compensation.

The New United States wrote:Those who embrace statism usually are not susceptible to "logic and reason," especially those who attempt to impose their idiocy upon others. The only way to defend ourselves is via military power.

But weren't we all statists once? I think there are a lot of intelligent people out there capable of embracing liberty who just need to open their minds. We shouldn't blame those born into the Matrix for their political ignorance. We should blame the Matrix and its corrupt operators.

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:anarchy would be awful because instead of being robbed to pay for sh*tty stuff that I don't want, I'd pay less money for better quality services voluntarily. our overlords would be out on the streets instead of telling us grateful proles what to do!!

Pevvania wrote:

Again...you put it in a way that sounds bad...but...exactly!

There needs to be government. To protect freedoms of people from people.

The State Of Deseret wrote:Again...you put it in a way that sounds bad...but...exactly!

There needs to be government. To protect freedoms of people from people.

That's why only a Libertarian Dictatorship would truly work to protect these rights.

The State Of Deseret wrote:That's why only a Libertarian Dictatorship would truly work to protect these rights.

That sounds like an oxymoron.

You should explain why it isn't.

Miencraft wrote:That sounds like an oxymoron.

You should explain why it isn't.

No political freedoms per say. As the Government's only duty is protection of personal right's. Dislike them and speak you have the ability. However you dont have the abiloty to emforce your views on another. If you try to the government can arrest you.

Full economic freedom and Social Liberties but little to no Political Power of an average citizen.

The State Of Deseret wrote:No political freedoms per say. As the Government's only duty is protection of personal right's. Dislike them and speak you have the ability. However you dont have the abiloty to emforce your views on another. If you try to the government can arrest you.

You just made it seem like even more of an oxymoron.

Again. I'm just explaining that's what a democracy doesn't do. I still prefer my political power so I'm still liking a representative democracy, but a Libertarian Dictatorship would be the only true free society from other men. Anarchy leads to some coercion by people.

Miencraft wrote:You just made it seem like even more of an oxymoron.

The State Of Deseret wrote:Full economic freedom and Social Liberties but little to no Political Power of an average citizen.

The State Of Deseret wrote:

"Little to no" anything doesn't seem very libertarian.

The State Of Deseret wrote:Again. I'm just explaining that's what a democracy doesn't do. I still prefer my political power so I'm still liking a representative democracy, but a Libertarian Dictatorship would be the only true free society from other men. Anarchy leads to some coercion by people.

"Dictatorship"

"Free society"

u wot m8

Miencraft wrote:"Dictatorship"

"Free society"

u wot m8

An example is like this: The state does nothing to impede on your private life, ane Citizens are proud of their wide-ranging civil freedoms, and those who aren't tend to be dragged off the streets.

Real-life examples:Government by an absolute monarch who gives the people great latitude when it comes to free speech, religious tolerance and the creative arts, however, criticizing the monarchy isn't one of the freedoms the citizens enjoy.

A dictatorship in which you have free range to do anything unless you are enforcing a belief against freedom.

TTA, the opposite of democracy is not dictatorship, despite what you believe. When many libertarians criticize democracy, they criticize it from an autarchic viewpoint, not unlike the anarcho-individualist's critique of democracy. Time has proven again and again that a dictator is in no way, shape, or form interested in preserving civil and economic liberties.

The State Of Deseret wrote:Again. I'm just explaining that's what a democracy doesn't do. I still prefer my political power so I'm still liking a representative democracy, but a Libertarian Dictatorship would be the only true free society from other men. Anarchy leads to some coercion by people.

Humpy is now a citizen again yay!

Who wants a kind of Political Character Role-Play....

Time periods or scenarios are.

Pre-Civil War

American Future Without Democrats and Republicans.

Tropico Politics

The Time around the first elections.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Humpy is now a citizen again yay!

Roads has to confirm it first; you guys just voted to eliminate the wait period.

Miencraft wrote:Roads has to confirm it first; you guys just voted to eliminate the wait period.

I know

The State Of Deseret wrote:Full economic freedom and Social Liberties but little to no Political Power of an average citizen.

But you don't believe in economic freedom - something you've already admitted.

Pevvania wrote:But you don't believe in economic freedom - something you've already admitted.

*Yawns*

The State Of Deseret wrote:Again. I'm just explaining that's what a democracy doesn't do. I still prefer my political power and not completely free economics so I'm still liking a representative democracy, but a Libertarian Dictatorship would be the only true free society from other men. Anarchy leads to some coercion by people.

Pevvania wrote:Gotcha.

I'd in ni way support it ad I support my system of Moderate Libertarianism, which involves representative Democracies.I'm

By the way. I have outlined what Moderate Libertarianism is now.

Once my citizenship has been ratified, I will rejoin the RLP.

That reminds me...Pevvy I sent you the DRP thing?

The Warring States Of The Mediterranean wrote:That reminds me...Pevvy I sent you the DRP thing?

Yep.

Hmm.. should Humpy become a citizen or not...

Definitely yes :] approved!

Muh Roads wrote:Hmm.. should Humpy become a citizen or not...

Definitely yes :] approved!

Yee

Humpheria wrote:Yee

I'm enjoying the original flag.

Muh Roads wrote:I'm enjoying the original flag.

The only one I had saved. The only other one was an eagle with "President of Libertatem" on it. Didn't really apply anymore.

Muh Roads wrote:Hmm.. should Humpy become a citizen or not...

Definitely yes :] approved!

Disgusting. The RLP establishment wins again. WHERE WAS THE SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR BROTHER TIME?!!

Humpheria wrote:The only one I had saved. The only other one was an eagle with "President of Libertatem" on it. Didn't really apply anymore.

I have another commission of yours where it's some stars on a beige cross over a blue background.

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