Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
But the removal of the state from marriage will adversely affect other people, in that it completely disregards the rights of the child. State protection of the marital institution, and the regulation of that institution, is the only method by which the rights of children, individuals subject to being party to an involuntary association of persons, may be protected; and the protection of every individual's rights is the utmost priority of the state.
I'm not sure that that could be a constitutional argument, could it?
Rateria, Condealism, Reaganomic Nws
That's... a very good point, actually. I hadn't considered that.
The New United States, Rateria, Reaganomic Nws
Rounding is most certainly a thing for example, 1.9999999(etc.)=2 but this does not mean 2=-567.5.
Reaganomic Nws
Nor did I say that 2 is equal to -567.5. I said that values ranging from 1.5 to 2.49999999 could be rounded to 2.
In cases that require you to round to the nearest integer, that is. (Judging by how significant figures work, I admit that this wouldn't be necessary all that often.)
Post self-deleted by The New United States.
Can... Can Conservatives make good points? I thought they were just ebil, unprincipled Fox News drones.
My entire worldview is falling apart! Why would CNN lie to me? Why do those ebull Republicant's think I'm not entitled to things? What is an ivory tower?
The New United States, Rateria, The Victorium Republic
The question of children's rights has been plaguing my mind for awhile now. It usually gets brought up when the topic of religious schools is being discussed. Do fanatical lunatics have the right to indoctrinate their kids with irrational and often dangerous ideas and refuse to expose them to the "sinful world" by denying them proper education and a healthy social life? I'm afraid that many libertarians would argue that it is the inherent right of parents to dictate how their child will be brought up, even if their choice happenes to be to raise the poor kid in ways that are considered objectively harmful to the child's physical and/or emotional health and general wellbeing. There is obviously something wrong with this. On the other hand, it is hard to defend severe state interference in the education of children without indirectly advocating for a type of social engineering and suppression of minority cultures and lifestyles by a moralistic government. After all, if the parents don't know what's good for the child, what would make us think that the state, being the oppressive, corrupt entity it is, would know any better? Most likely, it would deliberately indoctrinate the children in order to create a more brainwashed and therefore obedient society. We've seen this happen many times throughout history. I really can't figure out how to properly deal with this whole issue from a libertarian perspective without completely disregarding rights of children. It seems to be the only deficiency of pure libertarianism.
[URL=http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=387453]UNIVERSITY ANNOUNCEMENT
Join the Commonwealth Regional University today! We are now enrolling new students and employing new professors. Inquire now![/url]
Looks interesting...I will consider signing up.
How comes the cold war boys?
Dangit TNUS.. now I'm gonna have to write a huge response when I get home from work :P
The New United States, Rateria
Hi guys. Question: would an Al Gore presidency have been better for liberty?
Does arguing with you constitute an act of apostasy? :P
Rateria
Yes, but that means that 2.5=2 only when rounding to the nearest integer. But if you did this twice with 2.5 and then found the sum of the two numbers the answer would still be 4 because you rounded thus discarding the extra 0.5. Furthermore, you could round one 2.5 to 3 and one to 2 but this would still be 2+3 which is actually 5.
Reaganomic Nws
No, you round up when you reach the half. Ex: .5 = 1, 1.5 = 2, 2.5 = 3. It's before the half when you round down. Ex: .49 = 0, 1.49 = 1, 2.49 = 2.
Other than that, you're right, and that's what I meant by this:
I'm just saying that if you were to round each number in the finished equation without further changing the values, you'd end up with 2 + 2 = 5.
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/11703235_1632853263651389_6069682332194520820_o.jpg
Miencraft, The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, Condealism, Wovenland
None of your tricks will work here, Rona. We are far more clever than your anarchist friends.
The New United States
Hey, Ron. Give away any good regions to our enemies lately?
Well negating the fact that this doesn't prove 2+2=5, it's only showing that 2.5+2.5=5, you can round either way at .5 as it isn't closer to either value. In maths you have to prove, this is merely providing a situation.
No, it doesn't prove it. It just looks like it.
I was going for something like 2.3 + 2.3 = 4.6. Or, if each of those values were to be rounded to the nearest integer, 2 + 2 = 5.
I am not good at the, how you say, small talk.
hello
Who are you?
No, it's "Who the hell are you?"
Speaking of which, who the hell are you?
mhomen 3: mhomen harder
Tyrinth
Who the hell is back with a vengeance?
Having a bad day, Humpheria?
Out of curiosity, why are you debating the merits of rounding numbers? I personally disapprove of rounding, especially when small numbers are being rounded.
The New United States
Well, it started when a red came on and was tried to mock us, saying that 2 + 2 = 5, and then a discussion started about if that could ever be proven and, of so, under what circumstances.
Rateria
Welcome, Stellonia! :)
What?
Nothing. You just seemed a bit snippy in one of your posts is all.
I didn't post anything here.
I didn't know you were from the Commonwealth.
Greetings from Right To Life! Hope you're all having a fine day, and remember: a person's a person, no matter how small.
The New United States, Condealism
Welcome, friend! :)
I'm everywhere.
;)
Ironically Dr. Seuss was a pro-abortion advocate.
Miencraft, Kings Island, Ronacria, Right-Winged Nation, Hallo Island
Are you insinuating that I was a spy ALL ALONG? What could I, or my would be benefactors gain from an empty region?
I would probably ask the guy that betrayed the trust of his friends and was the principal actor in the emptying of that region.
Now, who could that be?
*blink*
You accuse me of something which I have no pretence, nor do I care about. The former AAA wanted to keep fighting against their relatives, I didn't. It is foolish for either side to want the region, but I at least wanted to give the new region somewhat of a fresh slate.
I'm not saying you're a spy. I'm just saying that you're sapping my sentry, that you just ordered a martini "shaken, not stirred", and that you're vigorously nodding your head in agreement with "Weird Al" Yankovic's "Party in the CIA".
Kidding, kidding. I know you. You just wanted to do the right thing, wash your hands of the conflict.
And now it seems neither Libertatem, nor the Red Fleet, nor even your old friends trust you. Such is a consequence of that kind of decision.
Miencraft, Kings Island, The New United States
Yep, and it doesn't even matter!
Woooooo.
I shall leave you as you left A3. As you left UCR. Marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead region.
Buried alive... buried alive...
Post self-deleted by The New United States.
I know we all have things to do in real life, but I think it would be really intellectually productive if we could have some honest-to-goodness rebuttals to my rights-based argument for state intervention in marriage.
It would also show me that you all aren't quietly agreeing with me, which I'm sure is not the case.
Well, your argument rests upon the assumption that a homosexual couple is automatically infererior so far as the rearing of children is concerned. This is a very controversial assumption and, regardless of it's truth (purported or actual), exceptions occur.
I'm about to go to bed but I'll have more in the morning.
My argument had nothing to do with the question of homosexual marriage, though.
That would be an argument to be had if my original thesis is correct. That is: the state should be involved in and regulate the institution of marriage, because the family which is born from such a relationship is an inherently involuntary relationship, and the rights of the child (the individual subject to the sovereignty of the other individual, contrary to the NAP) must be protected by the state.
Rateria
He made no references to homosexual couples whatsoever. He merely argued that the state ought to protect the rights of children. You may apply that argument however you want provided that you have sufficient evidence that a child has his/her rights violated by oppressive parents.
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, Condealism
I think it would be in the self interest of the state to take care of its members completely unable to take care of themselves in a Minarchist society, e.g. the children, severely handicapped.
I am less likely however to extend the same line of reasoning to elderly people, since they have the chance to prepare.
I will respond today... things got busy yesterday. =P
The New United States
If you end up removing the embasies anyway, this scene from Schindler's List be fitting:
Reiter: The entire foundation has to be torn down and repoured. If not, there will be at least a subsidence at the southern end of the barracks. Subsidence, and then collapse.
Goeth: And you are an engineer?
Reiter: Yes. My name is Diana Reiter. I'm a graduate of Civil Engineering from the University of Milan.
Goeth: Ah, an educated Jew... like Karl Marx himself. Unterscharfuehrer!
Hujar: Jawohl?
Goeth: Shoot her.
Reiter: Herr Kommandant! I'm only trying to do my job!
Goeth: Ja, I'm doing mine.
Hujar: Sir, she's foreman of construction.
Goeth: I'm not going to have arguments with these people.
[Hujar starts to drag Reiter away; Goeth stops him]
Goeth: No. Shoot her here, on my authority.
Reiter: It will take more than that...
Goeth: I'm sure you're right.
[Reiter is shot]
Goeth: Take it down, repour it, rebuild it, like she said.
I find your fascination with becoming a martyr disturbing.
Rateria, Reaganomic Nws
You are jumping to conclusions.
He has nothing to lose but his chains, you capitalist dog.
Reaganomic Nws
I meant the fact that you compared us to Goeth and yourself to Reiter.
But the real fascists are still out there, are they not? How many more regions could your comrades have saved from them if they hadn't stopped to antagonize us all those months ago? How many more of your former allies would still be around today had we not returned that aggression in kind?
Rateria
It is a funny comparison, nothing more.
Hi guys
Pevvania
No, a funny comparison would be likening myself to Winston Churchill because I make grandiose speeches, am the leader of this America-centric region's smaller ally, and am demonstrably disdainful of despotic dictators.
Hmm. And I suffer from what he'd call his "black dog". Come to think of it, there are a lot of similarities there, but I digress.
A contemptuous comparison would be likening us to such a ruthless character, a worrying comparison would be likening yourself to a murder victim, and an unrealistic comparison would be implying that you're any more opposed to fascism, and what it stands for, than we are.
Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria, Reaganomic Nws
$2.055 is rounded to $2.06. But what if it were 2 dollars 5 cents and 5/10 th's ?
Pevvania
You know, "Who the hell are you?" guy, I don't think I've seen you comment on that ol' running gag. What are your thoughts on it?
Then we'd have to add ha'pennies back to our currency.
Rateria
Lulz - loving all the "libertarians" commenting about immigrants takin' muh jerbs: https://www.facebook.com/JohnStossel/posts/10152907274291621
Immigration, both legal and illegal, is great - http://reason.com/archives/2015/08/12/immigration-is-great/
Libertarians need to speak out against the War on Immigrants that the federal government is perpetrating - http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/libertarians-should-care-about-americas-ban-on-immigration
Any concern over increasing welfare expenditures, job losses, or falling wages are all unfounded, and in fact most empirical evidence suggests that immigration has the reverse effect.
Miencraft, Rateria, Condealism
I'm a person in your region.
Pevvania
Occasionally I comment on here,Just like you.
Pevvania
That is just hilarious. 😀😀😀
I can't decipher your name. What is condealism ?
A portmanteau of Conservative and Idealism. I'm [nation=short]Conservative Idealism[/nation].
So that's who the hell you are.
Rateria
Lunch break...
So enjoy guys :)
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1718-castro-jesus-2B-santa-6-realities-growing-up-in-cuba_p3.html
That country's still relevant?
I was inactive for twelve days (sorry about that), and this is what happens? This is something I will have to get used to. Most of all, you guys start debating MATHEMATICS as a comeback!
Pevvania
I think the math debate was the best comeback ever!
Pevvania
Post self-deleted by The Aradites.
triple mhomen feature:
http://fakemovieposter.s3.amazonaws.com/1439408833flopgun.jpg
http://fakemovieposter.s3.amazonaws.com/1439408112thehuntforredseptember.jpg
http://fakemovieposter.s3.amazonaws.com/1439407209termination2placementday.jpg
Pevvania, Condealism
It's funny that UKIP claim to be libertarian yet most of their members despise immigration. Yes, I don't like the EU, but I'm not sure many of them quite get the point.
Pevvania
I love you for this.
Pevvania
Post self-deleted by Ransomed Individuals.
muh jerbs
Also, being against a sensible immigration policy means you are ignorant about how the labour market works. But it doesn't matter, because the English feel entitled to their own jobs despite the fact that jobs is not a tangible commodity and are not linked to the amount of people present, but a multitude of other factors like the cost of labour (minimum wage and other variables), changing demand in some sectors, or other barriers (usually imposed by the government).
In reality, cutting off immigration means that you are only fighting your own countrymen for jobs instead of immigrants, hardly an improvement.
Miencraft, Rateria
They make damn good cigars man.
Agreed actually, except for the bit about it being not an intrusion into one's love life.
I know this isn't what your trying to get after, but if it hasn't been clear before.. it took many years for (the US) government to accept marriages between individuals of different sexual & racial identities. Too this day, many governments still do not allow marriages or even love between those of the same sex. Some countries even carry a death penalty for doing so. So i ask, what good comes from the government knowing whom your married too? The extortion breaks?
I feel there is also a privacy concern at play. It's not the states business whom i love and who i choose to share last names with. It's a complete waste of taxpayer dollars and human brain power to "certify" marriage and dip into people's love life.
I get what you're saying here, but marriage does not necessarily mean your going to create a "family unit". Marriage is an act out of love and pure devotion to another individual, or eh.. object as some individuals choose.. and that's all there is too it. Children's rights is a different topic in my opinion entirely.
I believe that any living individual deserve equal rights, and this transfers unto children. Children are not controlled by the parent, rather taught, and that's simply how it should be. The common mindset that children are "owned" is completely misguided. Now, i think it's human nature for parent's to love and want whats best for their children. However as we all know this is not always the case.
For example, a huge topic over the past few years has been young babies being locked up in hot vehicles and left to suffocate. We do have laws to prevent this and yet it still happens. Proving that involving the government and it's laws has not changed the outcome in the slightest. Under the NAP, the parent wouldn't be held to a law citing "child abuse" and stuck in prison.. rather i believe the consequences would be much more dire than a lifetime of "think about what you did" and "You're now a tax payer's leech, here is your 3 hots and a cot".
Miencraft, Kings Island
I personally think that there's a significant cultural and legal bias against single people.
Right-Winged Nation
There is a cultural and legal bias against all people.
Miencraft
Point.
I've got a commie and fascist detector...
Anybody want to try it out ???
What if 2 plus 2 didn't equal 4?
Are you just being silly or actually trying to start a meaningful conversation?
*beep* *beep* *beep*
Technically I identify as an anarchist.
Well, as the Kahjiit say: "A perfect land is always found elsewhere!"
Or Elswheyr.
And Now I shall leave.
It's that left handers day today, why don't we have a right handers day?
I'm ambidextrous. #donttreadonmepls
Oh, how nice. Ron's going to spy on TI for us.
"Uh, Con, that's not what's happeni-"
Shhhh. A man can dream.
It's funny how conservatives are hostile to welfare yet want to increase defense spending, much of which is effectively military welfare for other countries. Hundreds of billions are being wasted on countries that have well-developed armies and defense systems.
Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Condealism
You just reminded me of this funny joke from the Simpsons.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xpDh8sdbkUk
Now you understand what we're up against. Lol
I don't understand?
>identifies as a communist
>enjoys the simpsons, a for-profit television program made by capitalism through youtube, a commercial venture that also only exists as a result of profit-and-loss mechanisms
>lolwut
Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, Reaganomic Nws
Don't ever get laser eye surgery pev, it was invented by the soviets!
Your point? We live in a capitalist society, it's a pointless exercise to try to live a socialist lifestyle, in the same way that you could not be a businessman in a socialist society.
"Anarcho"-communism: https://i.imgflip.com/phy0f.jpg
Reaganomic Nws
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.