Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Lack There Of wrote:Don't tell me what kind of afternoon to have

Have the afternoon you have.

Hallo Island wrote:Have the afternoon you have.

You're damn right I will

Hooray, the Internet's back! Peasants: return to your townships and await further instructions.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Well Pev, I can try to answer that. I believe that there should be a minimum wage because I believe that people should be allowed to make money from the labor that they perform. The reason that pay for servers and waiters and cashiers are paid so low because fast food was not meant to be a permanent job. The majority of employees that work fast food are teenagers, college students that work for extra cash, or dropouts in which is was the only job they can find. I believe that you be allowed to make a living for yourself until you can get your life together. The reason I believe minimum wage should be so low is the fact that it would kill businesses and it would increase the price of goods for customers. I do not think that a fast food employee should make 20 dollars an hour, that is ludicrous.

So to answer your question Pev, I believe that there should be a low minimum wage because I think that people should have the chance to make the bare minimum t o survive until they can get their life together(on a sidenote, if you work for a fast food chain for more that ten years and you're still making minimum wage, there is something wrong with you.)

But why is a price floor needed to guarantee a 'bare minimum' for these people? Wouldn't companies just compensate low-skilled workers for the value of their labour, as they do in all other markets?

Anyone want to make a suggestion for Libertatem Radio?

Pevvania wrote:Anyone want to make a suggestion for Libertatem Radio?

I have a suggestion.

Juodaan Viinaa by Korpiklaani

http://youtu.be/6z4DRPG7rbc

"I do not find fear to be an effective motivator." - Gustavo Fring.

Exams are killing me today

Pevvania wrote:Anyone want to make a suggestion for Libertatem Radio?

"I'm Reading A Book" by Julian Smith

Pevvania wrote:"I do not find fear to be an effective motivator." - Gustavo Fring.

Even though he threatens to kill Walt's entire family multiple times

Pevvania wrote:Anyone want to make a suggestion for Libertatem Radio?

Volunteers- Jefferson airplane

Pevvania wrote:Anyone want to make a suggestion for Libertatem Radio?

Family Bible by George Jones

Post self-deleted by Ankha.

Ankha wrote:What??

You deleted a post. A common practice of Ipian.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Ankha Ipianed!

I enjoy the fact that "ipaning" is a thing now.

I know, but ipianing is better than lacking.....JK

That's a great video by the way. I love how that kid just breaks Pelosi

Pevvania wrote:"I do not find fear to be an effective motivator." - Gustavo Fring.

Gus isn't even my favorite character in that show.

He's beyond that. He's my favorite character in all of television.

Well, kinda tied between him and Tyrion Lannister, but ignoring him, it's definitely Gus.

He even does that thing that happens in the Season 4 finale amazingly.

I'm, uh, assuming that you haven't seen that episode, Pev, so I won't say things.

Miencraft wrote:Gus isn't even my favorite character in that show.

He's beyond that. He's my favorite character in all of television.

Well, kinda tied between him and Tyrion Lannister, but ignoring him, it's definitely Gus.

He even does that thing that happens in the Season 4 finale amazingly.

I'm, uh, assuming that you haven't seen that episode, Pev, so I won't say things.

I've only watched up to S4 E1 so far. I love the actor who plays him - Giancarlo Esposito. He plays a fantastic character in the TV series Revolution. Did anyone here watch that?

So the Conservative Front won the elections.

Pick what group in the CF is going to Represent them.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=298946

Lack There Of wrote:Look at this wise guy

It was an offer I couldn't refuse, Lack.

EU4 just got confusing.

A vassal went to war with me because they wanted independence.

Realizing I really didn't need them anyways, I went to negotiate with them and grant them independence in exchange for ending the war.

Apparently, they're not willing to negotiate for independence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7yGvpWVsI&feature=youtu.be&t=5s

Interesting thread on the forums right now: Pinochet vs. Allende. Which one did more good for Chile? I certainly know where I stand on it.

*Lauches a rogue missle at Miencraft's nation for teh lulz*

Pevvania wrote:Interesting thread on the forums right now: Pinochet vs. Allende. Which one did more good for Chile? I certainly know where I stand on it.

I posted my position. Pinochet, Pinochet, Pinochet.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:*Lauches a rogue missle at Miencraft's nation for teh lulz*

It's 1539 and I just created the Kingdom of Russia out of Muscovy five years ago.

Dahell you doin' with missiles.

Miencraft wrote:It's 1539 and I just created the Kingdom of Russia out of Muscovy five years ago.

Dahell you doin' with missiles.

I am a time traveler. Since you are on an alternative timeline, I can eliminate you for "teh lulz" and experience no time paradoxes or moral repercussions.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I posted my position. Pinochet, Pinochet, Pinochet.

*Puts on utilitarian hat*

I have to agree. Allende was an incompetent land-grabber whose destructive economic policies plunged millions into despair. Pinochet was most certainly an asahole, but his pro-market domestic policies have taken Chile to enormous heights of success. Anyone who denies this is being intellectually dishonest. There's a reason so many of his 'socialist' successors have strengthened and expanded Pinochet's reforms.

Salvador Allende was the better of the two in my opinion.

Pevvania wrote:*Puts on utilitarian hat*

I have to agree. Allende was an incompetent land-grabber whose destructive economic policies plunged millions into despair. Pinochet was most certainly an asahole, but his pro-market domestic policies have taken Chile to enormous heights of success. Anyone who denies this is being intellectually dishonest. There's a reason so many of his 'socialist' successors have strengthened and expanded Pinochet's reforms.

"But Pev, RAPE DOGS!"

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I am a time traveler. Since you are on an alternative timeline, I can eliminate you for "teh lulz" and experience no time paradoxes or moral repercussions.

This seems logical, since Ivan IV hasn't become Prince yet.

Go ahead, then.

Albenia wrote:Salvador Allende was the better of the two in my opinion.

While he was an incompetent leader and enacted failing socialistic policies. Pinochet overthrew the elected socialist Unidad Popular government of President Salvador Allende and ended civilian rule. Of course he then prosecuted political opponents.Various reports and investigations claim that between 1,200 and 3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 people were interned and as many as 30,000 were tortured during the time Pinochet was in government.

Anyhow. His economic policies were overall good but the drastic changes over that short period led to major income inequality which might've been prevented if the changes were enacted slower.

Albenia wrote:While he was an incompetent leader and enacted failing socialistic policies. Pinochet overthrew the elected socialist Unidad Popular government of President Salvador Allende and ended civilian rule. Of course he then prosecuted political opponents.Various reports and investigations claim that between 1,200 and 3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 people were interned and as many as 30,000 were tortured during the time Pinochet was in government.

Anyhow. His economic policies were overall good but the drastic changes over that short period led to major income inequality which might've been prevented if the changes were enacted slower.

And Obama kills people with drones en masse.

But it's alright if they aren't citizens, amirite?

Not to mention Obama hasn't done anything except deliver Bush's piecemeal promise whilst expanding other policies.

Albenia wrote:Salvador Allende was the better of the two in my opinion.

The 300% inflation rate in 1973 doesn't agree with you.

Albenia wrote:While he was an incompetent leader and enacted failing socialistic policies. Pinochet overthrew the elected socialist Unidad Popular government of President Salvador Allende and ended civilian rule. Of course he then prosecuted political opponents.Various reports and investigations claim that between 1,200 and 3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 people were interned and as many as 30,000 were tortured during the time Pinochet was in government.

Anyhow. His economic policies were overall good but the drastic changes over that short period led to major income inequality which might've been prevented if the changes were enacted slower.

Income inequality is something that none of us should care about at all. Why would I care if a rising tide is taking the yachts higher? Income inequality is irrelevant, and probably desirable.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:"But Pev, RAPE DOGS!"

What?

Anyone have suggestions on what my national anthem should be?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:And Obama kills people with drones en masse.

But it's alright if they aren't citizens, amirite?

Not to mention Obama hasn't done anything except deliver Bush's piecemeal promise whilst expanding other policies.

Much Obama....

Little Chilean Presidents

Pevvania wrote:The 300% inflation rate in 1973 doesn't agree with you.

Income inequality is something that none of us should care about at all. Why would I care if a rising tide is taking the yachts higher? Income inequality is irrelevant, and probably desirable.

What?

You should care. I'm going by which I would rather live in. An economic sh*t state where I had a choice and could speak my mind? Or a productive state where speaking against the government I'd get shot?

I mean don't get me wrong. His economic policies were much better. However in a non- democratic state is a good economy really better then a poor country where you did have democracy?

Pevvania wrote:*Puts on utilitarian hat*

I have to agree. Allende was an incompetent land-grabber whose destructive economic policies plunged millions into despair. Pinochet was most certainly an asahole, but his pro-market domestic policies have taken Chile to enormous heights of success. Anyone who denies this is being intellectually dishonest. There's a reason so many of his 'socialist' successors have strengthened and expanded Pinochet's reforms.

I'd have to agree. Pinochet was an @$$hole, but he was economically right. Being an @$$hole doesn't necessarily make a person wrong.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:"RAPE DOGS!"

Wat. At first TTA, and now you?!

Albenia wrote:I mean don't get me wrong. His economic policies were much better. However in a non- democratic state is a good economy really better then a poor country where you did have democracy?

It's more than just a good economy - it's having the freedom to plan your own life. Your choices in the marketplace define your whole life. When those choices are made for you by some faceless bureaucrats hundreds of miles away, democracy means nothing. Democracy didn't help the thousands of Japanese Americans interned by FDR. Democracy empowers the majority, who are in most cases politically and economically illiterate.

Albenia wrote:I mean don't get me wrong. His economic policies were much better. However in a non- democratic state is a good economy really better then a poor country where you did have democracy?

I'd take a free market state minus political freedoms. If the socialists control your property, they control your livelihood and action, without directly having to impose social regulations. It's masked authoritarianism.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:I'd have to agree. Pinochet was an @$$hole, but he was economically right. Being an @$$hole doesn't necessarily make a person wrong.

Wat. At first TTA, and now you?!

An ***hole who killed those who didn't support his regime.

Pevvania wrote:It's more than just a good economy - it's having the freedom to plan your own life. Your choices in the marketplace define your whole life. When those choices are made for you by some faceless bureaucrats hundreds of miles away, democracy means nothing. Democracy didn't help the thousands of Japanese Americans interned by FDR. Democracy empowers the majority, who are in most cases politically and economically illiterate.

^this guy

Liberosia wrote:I'd take a free market state minus political freedoms. If the socialists control your property, they control your livelihood and action, without directly having to impose social regulations. It's masked authoritarianism.

Look here. The basic if this is that (Forgive me I Can't remember names) The Right-wing guy just killed you if you didn't agree wuth him. That's not minus political freedoms. It's 0 political freedoms.

Pevvania wrote:It's more than just a good economy - it's having the freedom to plan your own life. Your choices in the marketplace define your whole life. When those choices are made for you by some faceless bureaucrats hundreds of miles away, democracy means nothing. Democracy didn't help the thousands of Japanese Americans interned by FDR. Democracy empowers the majority, who are in most cases politically and economically illiterate.

How does that fit this topic?

Albenia wrote:An ***hole who killed those who didn't support his regime.

I believe we should attribute lives lost because of lost opportunity in the market to Allende. I don't have the statistic, but judging from other socialist governments, the mortality rate was probably pretty high.

Liberosia wrote:^this guy

Pev. Can you explain in better terms more relevant to the Chile thing?

Hey! Hey Pev! Guess what ...................................FDR

Albenia wrote:Look here. The basic if this is that (Forgive me I Can't remember names) The Right-wing guy just killed you if you didn't agree wuth him. That's not minus political freedoms. It's 0 political freedoms.

I'd agree with him. Especially if he protects my business.

Liberosia wrote:I believe we should attribute lives lost because of lost opportunity in the market to Allende. I don't have the statistic, but judging from other socialist governments, the mortality rate was probably pretty high.

Okay a government that intentionally kills vs a government that made poor choices and the consequence was the Death of the citizens.

Gtg

Albenia wrote:Okay a government that intentionally kills vs a government that made poor choices and the consequence was the Death of the citizens.

Gtg

A government doesn't make "right" choices. Rights are always being violated, but I'd rather have a few worthless socialists shot or thrown in jail then have a society go through mass starvation and systemic poverty because of the State.

Liberosia wrote:A government doesn't make "right" choices. Rights are always being violated, but I'd rather have a few worthless socialists shot or thrown in jail then have a society go through mass starvation and systemic poverty because of the State.

A few? You understand there were thousands killed...Shooting someone for their beliefs is an infringement of THE MOST BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT.

Kazan must not want their independence from my Russian empire thingy.

*not getting involved in debate like I should*

What I'm trying to say, TTA, is that although the Pinochet regime was an empowered state that murdered thousands and suppressed political speech, it protected private property rights in other regards. And property rights are the foundation of all other rights. The free-market reforms of the 70s and 80s actually played a strong part in weakening the power of the military junta, and became a solid foundation for the republic we see today.

Allende's Chile may have allowed you to speak your mind, but who gives a damn about free speech when your property is being legally expropriated, your income robbed and your business torn apart by government? Political rights don't mean anything when your whole life is literally being stolen from you. Sure, you're free to complain about it, and free to stand for office to change things, and free to challenge the state in the courts. But you cannot individually protect yourself.

Chile was better under Pinochet because individuals could keep their property and define their own lives. Allende, who was a deeply corrupt leader who took Soviet money and violated the Constitution frequently, may have allowed you to speak out against him but that was because he had the apparatus of the state on his side. Or at least he did initially.

Albenia wrote:A few? You understand there were thousands killed...Shooting someone for their beliefs is an infringement of THE MOST BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT.

There are no rights absent property rights. Socialists forgo those. Therefore, socialists have no rights.

Yes but in one you have the ability to change it. The other you don't have power to change it.

Liberosia wrote:A government doesn't make "right" choices. Rights are always being violated, but I'd rather have a few worthless socialists shot or thrown in jail then have a society go through mass starvation and systemic poverty because of the State.

^

Albenia wrote:A few? You understand there were thousands killed...Shooting someone for their beliefs is an infringement of THE MOST BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT.

I disagree. Property rights are the most basic human rights. A) you own your thoughts, b) you own yourself, c) you own your property, so people can't just come onto it and tell you how much of a worthless person you are. You'd kick them out.

This applies to everything else. Open Carry Texas doesn't know how much it's harming the gun rights movement right now by bringing machine guns into restaurants. But these restaurants have every right to them away gun owners, or anybody else for that matter.

Liberosia wrote:There are no rights absent property rights. Socialists forgo those. Therefore, socialists have no rights.

Okay.

"I can't own this land freely. However I can try to change the economic policies and not die."

"I own this land freely. However my friends disliked the government and got shot."

Which sounds more appealing?

But Pinochet already gave me my property rights, what more could I ask for? I have nothing to say against him.

Albenia wrote:Okay.

"I can't own this land freely. However I can try to change the economic policies and not die."

"I own this land freely. However my friends disliked the government and got shot."

Which sounds more appealing?

My friends wouldn't have been shot, only my enemies.

Albenia wrote:Okay.

"I can't own this land freely. However I can try to change the economic policies and not die."

"I own this land freely. However my friends disliked the government and got shot."

Which sounds more appealing?

'Trying to change' a country's's economic policies is much harder than it sounds. It's like trying to convince millions of happy, oblivious slaves to give you permission to unchain yourself.

Pinochet's market reforms were indispensable in creating a long-lasting democratic republic.

Liberosia wrote:But Pinochet already gave me my property rights, what more could I ask I have nothing to say against him.

The fact that there's no elections, No freedom of speech, No freedom of expression and you see people get killed by the government.

Look. It boils down to this.

Would you rather own property yourself

or

Have Political and Social freedoms

Albenia wrote:The fact that there's no elections, No freedom of speech, No freedom of expression and you see people get killed by the government.

Don't care about elections, my guy's in power. A minor setback, but mainly only for socialists. Please, don't give me the expression bullshit. I see a few Commies get killed for their advocacy of the worst ideology in history. Oh I'm so sad.

I think the primary danger of 'good' dictatorships - if there is such a thing - is that when their leader dies political uncertainty comes. A new dictator may lack the leadership capabilities of the previous one, and the government may collapse; or perhaps he may mismanage the economy and that will collapse.

But Pinochet created an economy that complimented and even welcomed republican government. Planned economies are overwhelmingly politicised, but market economies do not need hierarchical management. Voluntary exchange weakened the military junta and made it irrelevant. Democratic change was the only logical step - and it would've been politically impossible for central planners to get back into government.

Pevvania wrote:The 300% inflation rate in 1973 doesn't agree with you.

Income inequality is something that none of us should care about at all. Why would I care if a rising tide is taking the yachts higher? Income inequality is irrelevant, and probably desirable.

What?

See the Pinochet thread. One of main criticisms against him is that he used "rape dogs."

Don't ask...

Albenia wrote:Look. It boils down to this.

Would you rather own property yourself

or

Have Political and Social freedoms

The former

Liberosia wrote:Don't care about elections, my guy's in power. A minor setback, but mainly only for socialists. Please, don't give me the expression bullshit. I see a few Commies get killed for their advocacy of the worst ideology in history. Oh I'm so sad.

Don't joke about that.

1. Nazism was the worst

2. Is it very libertarian to want to restrict rights of a certain group?

It shouldn't be downplayed how brutal the Pinochet regime was towards subversives. State killing of certain groups is an obvious violation of property rights, and in its first several years of power the military junta was extremely fascistic. But the marketisation of Chile gradually eroded the power of the state to the point that both political freedoms and property rights are protected.

Pevvania wrote:It shouldn't be downplayed how brutal the Pinochet regime was towards subversives. State killing of certain groups is an obvious violation of property rights, and in its first several years of power the military junta was extremely fascistic. But the marketisation of Chile gradually eroded the power of the state to the point that both political freedoms and property rights are protected.

And again. The lefty guy was terrible economically. No way around that. His policies were dreadful. However he did maintain political and social freedom.

Albenia wrote:Don't joke about that.

1. Nazism was the worst

2. Is it very libertarian to want to restrict rights of a certain group?

Nazism: 70 million deaths (Holocaust+World War II)

Communism: 100 million+ deaths

Pevvania wrote:Nazism: 70 million deaths (Holocaust+World War II)

Communism: 100 million+ deaths

Nazism: Planned killing of certain people

Communism: Very few died because of being against the government. They were unintended deaths.

Albenia wrote:Don't joke about that.

1. Nazism was the worst

2. Is it very libertarian to want to restrict rights of a certain group?

Statistically incorrect. I'll say they're equivalent, but they're ALL socialists.

I'd rather have some semblance of rights in property than have them eliminated.

The economic system of socialism is the largest planned demacide in human history.

Albenia wrote:Nazism: Planned killing of certain people

Communism: Very few died because of being against the government. They were unintended deaths.

Pol Pot, Gulags, Cultural Revolution, etc. learn some education.

Also for Pev, repetition is the key to success.

Albenia wrote:Nazism: Planned killing of certain people

Communism: Very few died because of being against the government. They were unintended deaths.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Liberosia wrote:Pol Pot, Gulags, Cultural Revolution, etc. learn some education.

Also for Pev, repetition is the key to success.

That made my day.

Liberosia wrote:Pol Pot, Gulags, Cultural Revolution, etc. learn some education.

Also for Pev, repetition is the key to success.

Don't forget Stalins Purges and Tiananmen square.

....Oh yeah...

Okay so State Socialism and "non marxist\Leninist" Communism might've been worse.

Fontes Iuris Germanici Antiqu wrote:Don't forget Stalins Purges and Tiananmen square.

5 year plan.....

Not intentional but fits somewhat.

Fontes Iuris Germanici Antiqu wrote:Don't forget Stalins Purges and Tiananmen square.

Those too, of course. Hitler and the Nazis were socialists as well. I'm equating them. Isn't that what socialism is all about? Equality?

Pevvania wrote:That made my day.

Education must be learned, no?

Question of the Day: does Jesse Ventura know what he's talking about? Has he ever?

Pevvania wrote:Question of the Day: does Jesse Ventura know what he's talking about? Has he ever?

No....

Liberosia wrote:Those too, of course. Hitler and the Nazis were socialists as well. I'm equating them. Isn't that what socialism is all about? Equality?

Education must be learned, no?

National Socialists (Nazi's) are actually more of Controlled Capitalism then Planned Economy.

Course I dislike both...so I'm treat them equally in that aspect.

He is crazy, I know the Federal Government has done Crimes against the Citizens of the United States but jesse just thinks beyond the Crimes.

The Amarican Empire wrote:He is crazy, I know the Federal Government has done Crimes against the Citizens of the United States but jesse just thinks beyond the Crimes.

I saw an episode of him talking about Time Travel and 9/11 being the government's doing.

The Amarican Empire wrote:He is crazy, I know the Federal Government has done Crimes against the Citizens of the United States but jesse just thinks beyond the Crimes.

Correction, Against the Free World*

Albenia wrote:National Socialists (Nazi's) are actually more of Controlled Capitalism then Planned Economy.

Course I dislike both...so I'm treat them equally in that aspect.

Both are forms of socialism. Fascism is just a more effective and practical way to do it. In the end its all State control over the means of production, resources, and property. "Controlled Capitalism" is a contradiction in terms. Laissez-faire is diametrically opposed to both communism and national socialism, and is the odd one out of the three.

Wait...so Economically I'm Centrist which is fascist on some Spectrums

What....?

To all the minority people here, I'd like to point out the RLP only holds two seats on the Board as of now.

Albenia wrote:Wait...so Economically I'm Centrist which is fascist on some Spectrums

What....?

Yes, the economic system of fascism (i.e. corporativism/corporatism) is achieved through regulation, a welfare state, and other quasi socialist programs. Fascism is indirect control. Yes, you are an economic fascist. You are a fascist minus the racism and nationalism (I believe?).

Congrats, fascist.

Liberosia wrote:Both are forms of socialism. Fascism is just a more effective and practical way to do it. In the end its all State control over the means of production, resources, and property. "Controlled Capitalism" is a contradiction in terms. Laissez-faire is diametrically opposed to both communism and national socialism, and is the odd one out of the three.

Look. There's four types in my book (Not everyone's)

Leave alone- True Capitalism

Controlled Capitalism- Twisted and Regulated Capitalism

Mixed Economics-....Duh..

Planned Economics - Commies

Albenia wrote:Look. There's four types in my book (Not everyone's)

Leave alone- True Capitalism

Controlled Capitalism- Twisted and Regulated Capitalism

Mixed Economics-....Duh..

Planned Economics - Commies

The latter three are all the same because of one word in the last: PLANNED. The State CONTROLS economics, whether directly or indirectly, in any system other than laissez-faire. Fascism is the indirect species of socialism.

...Military spending is on the increase, the military is blowing up any threat to employment within the nation, space research funding has hit a recent high while several military bases are being closed down...

Liberosia wrote:The latter three are all the same because of one word in the last: PLANNED. The State CONTROLS economics, whether directly or indirectly, in any system other than laissez-faire. Fascism is the indirect species of socialism.

No they aren't. They vary due to the degree.

Controlled Capitalism leaves some restrictions and lets it free.

Mixed? Me!

Planned leaves total control under government.

Albenia wrote:No they aren't. They vary due to the degree.

Controlled Capitalism leaves some restrictions and lets it free.

Mixed? Me!

Planned leaves total control under government.

Look, fascist, if you allow the State any degree of control over the economy then its "degree" is completely arbitrary and will tend to expand, as is the trend, until it is forced to privatize or it collapses.

I'm talking about principles in economics and the fundamental differences. Laissez faire/free markets and Statism are the only two alternatives.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:...Military spending is on the increase, the military is blowing up any threat to employment within the nation, space research funding has hit a recent high while several military bases are being closed down...

What was the point of this...?

Liberosia wrote:What was the point of this...?

Maybe he is saving enough money to move his entire nation into space.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:...Military spending is on the increase, the military is blowing up any threat to employment within the nation, space research funding has hit a recent high while several military bases are being closed down...

Why doesn't the Army just arrest the Traitors in Washington Instead?

New caucuses:

Majority: Miencraft (RLP), TNUS (RLP), Amarican (PP)

Minority: RRRG (I), Lack there of (LP)

Fontes Iuris Germanici Antiqu wrote:Maybe he is saving enough money to move his entire nation into space.

By using NASA, a government program?! RENT SEEKING!

The Amarican Empire wrote:Why doesn't the Army just arrest the Traitors in Washington Instead?

They can't I don't think without a Coup....

Liberosia wrote:Look, fascist, if you allow the State any degree of control over the economy then its "degree" is completely arbitrary and will tend to expand, as is the trend, until it is forced to privatize or it collapses.

I'm talking about principles in economics and the fundamental differences. Laissez faire/free markets and Statism are the only two alternatives.

I am not fascist. I am Left Centre who is beginning to lean Radical Centrist.

This is not true. The Degree can stay the same. And Living in a "Leave Alone" Vs. Statism only situation shows how centered on one point only you are....Economics isn't a This or This. It has many different forms.

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