Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Pevvania wrote:

Welcome back.

I never really leave :P I just don't open this account very often X)

You know I prefer the RP side of NS :P Libertatem somewhat lacks in quality and quantity in that respect vis a vis the CoG, I'm afraid X)

Pax Osca wrote:I never really leave :P I just don't open this account very often X)

You know I prefer the RP side of NS :P Libertatem somewhat lacks in quality and quantity in that respect vis a vis the CoG, I'm afraid X)

I completely agree, and I've been saying for years that we need a good roleplay community established here. It would bring in more nations.

Pevvania wrote:I completely agree, and I've been saying for years that we need a good roleplay community established here. It would bring in more nations.

Well if you need it I can help establish something like that.

You'd need to set up Tech-level, map and ground rules (consent rules etc).

Post self-deleted by Humpheria.

Post self-deleted by Humpheria.

What happened if I may ask ?

Pax Osca wrote:Well if you need it I can help establish something like that.

You'd need to set up Tech-level, map and ground rules (consent rules etc).

Ooooh, I'd be interested in participating. I've been itching for RP lately.

I have been persuaded not to not run. I suppose I will still seek the office.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Miencraft wrote:So Spock died.

I heard. I was all to pieces. It popped up on my Instagram and I was like 'oh hell.'

Miencraft wrote:So Spock died.

He lived long and prospered. May peace and long life be upon his house.

Yeah Spock dying bummed me out

Hello all! I'm alive and kicking. I've finished my PhD exam and ready to return full-time. Hopefully within the next couple weeks I'll be known as Dr. Funky!

Muh Roads

Nationstates got all fancy! I can "like" things now!

i hope your doctorate is well received, Funky. wb. i am new here to libertatem.

Does anyone know what the repurcussions to funding the olympics with the first option are?

Mien beat Gabriel possenti! Amazing :p

Miencraft

Stupid Facebook page had to go and mention Bobby Franklin.

Dem feels tho.

I'm sorry for the mistrial, but my electrohydraulics studies come first. Safe to say I'm better electrically than mechanically.

Muh Roads wrote:Mien beat Gabriel possenti! Amazing :p

I bribed Barry to lower Possenti's score today.

Muh Roads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL0psyzspyM

The WA want to ban all nuclear weapons and I'm just here launching new satellites armed with atomic missiles.

I'll name the first one " the pain in the ass ", and I'll have a dozen more.

Muh Roads, Ankha, Austex

Waterproof Samsung S5. I can pay nationstates in the shower now. #getonmylevel

Muh Roads wrote:Waterproof Samsung S5. I can pay nationstates in the shower now. #getonmylevel

I can play nationstates too.

Miencraft wrote:I bribed Barry to lower Possenti's score today.

You must have bought his book.

Heheheh..

Muh Roads wrote:Waterproof Samsung S5. I can pay nationstates in the shower now. #getonmylevel

I always knew we would be in the shower together one day.

Ok, I'll stop. I want to go to Heaven.

Humpheria wrote:I always knew we would be in the shower together one day.

Ok, I'll stop. I want to go to Heaven.

It's too late, you've already sinned.

Muh Roads

Right-Winged Nation wrote:It's too late, you've already sinned.

And Cosined as well.

Humpheria wrote:I always knew we would be in the shower together one day.

Ok, I'll stop. I want to go to Heaven.

I told you Humpy, I'll take you to heaven baby ;)

The Serbian Empire wrote:And Cosined as well.

But has he tangented?

Humpheria wrote:I want to go to Heaven.

I told you before, you're already there.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:It's too late, you've already sinned.

Were all sinners, yo.

Miencraft wrote:But has he tangented?

I've went off on a tangent then.

Post self-deleted by Right-Winged Nation.

So I'm just waiting for May, the second Avengers premieres.

[nation=short]Pevvania[/nation],may I join your party?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:So I'm just waiting for May, the second Avengers premieres.

The first one was crap. I liked X-men more.

Muh Roads, Samarian Imperium

Hi I just joined the region :)

Muh Roads, Samarian Imperium

The English Post-War Confederacy wrote:Hi I just joined the region :)

Welcome! If you need any help with anything let us know!

Board elections are going on now. We should have done them earlier.

Board Members and prospective Board Members - what do you think about this idea: privatising the radio system? It would abolish Libertatem Radio and replace it with competing private radio stations. The President/executive could no longer make an official radio station.

What do you think about that? If this idea gets enough support, I can start drafting a bill right away.

Samarian Imperium

"An"-coms are at it again!

I've been trying to learn a bit more about "anarcho"-communism lately. And I've found a major problem in their thinking: they don't believe in anarchy. Take the Google definition of anarchism:

anarchism

ˈanəkɪz(ə)m/Submit

noun

noun: anarchism

belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

And the Wikipedia definition:

"Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system."

So, anarchism is necessarily stateless. But according to "an"-coms, it's not. Take an Anarchist Memes Facebook page definition:

"Anarchism means queer liberation, working class power, smashing the patriarchy, combating racism, destroying fascism, building socialism"

Or another "an"-com I came across: "Do you oppose all hierarchical and dominance? Do you oppose all centralization of power? Do you support democracy? If you said yes to all 3, you are an anarchist!"

Democracy means government.

It's clear to me, unless someone can correct me, that for "an"-coms anarchism means "things I like". Many of them don't believe in getting rid of the state at all. Just like how Tsardom came here a while back saying that Obama should have introduced totally socialised medicine to the US.

Libertarians can never ally with "an"-coms, because they do not fight for anarchism. They fight for government.

Austex

We can also look back to the actions of "anarchists" in the past such as their terrorising of WTO and IMF meetings that had gathered together in order to expand trade and voluntary interaction between human beings. Boy, "an"-coms sure do believe in freedom!

Pevvania wrote:Board Members and prospective Board Members - what do you think about this idea: privatising the radio system? It would abolish Libertatem Radio and replace it with competing private radio stations. The President/executive could no longer make an official radio station.

What do you think about that? If this idea gets enough support, I can start drafting a bill right away.

I like this idea. However they should be regulated by the Manager of Internal Affairs, in a similar way that people apply for citizenship, they should apply to open a radio station. I also reckon non-citizens should be able to open a station too.

Samarian Imperium wrote:I like this idea. However they should be regulated by the Manager of Internal Affairs, in a similar way that people apply for citizenship, they should apply to open a radio station. I also reckon non-citizens should be able to open a station too.

Regulating radio stations would abridge free speech rights protected by the Constitution.

Social democrats and "liberals": economics is for donkeys

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Samarian Imperium wrote:I like this idea. However they should be regulated by the Manager of Internal Affairs, in a similar way that people apply for citizenship, they should apply to open a radio station. I also reckon non-citizens should be able to open a station too.

That is the exact opposite of privatized.

Pevvania wrote:"An"-coms are at it again!

I've been trying to learn a bit more about "anarcho"-communism lately.

Trying to imply anarcho-communism isn't a form of anarchism is baseless. You would have to completely disregard over a hundred years of philosophical thought and the largest example of an anarchist society in history, since the Free Territory was an anarcho-communist zone.

Anyway, if you have been learning about anarcho-communism, then you would understand that anarcho-communism is not a system itself but a theory of achieving communism, which is a "classless, stateless, moneyless society where workers democratically manage the collectively owned means of production and goods are distributed according to need". Anarcho-communism rejects Marx's idea of a socialist state as a transition stage and calls for the immediate abolition of both capitalism and the state.

Pevvania wrote:And I've found a major problem in their thinking: they don't believe in anarchy.

I always find it hilarious when someone who doesn't believe in anarchism tells anarchists they don't believe in anarchism.

Pevvania wrote:Take the Google definition of anarchism:

anarchism

ˈanəkɪz(ə)m/Submit

noun

noun: anarchism

belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

At face value, that is wrong. Anarchism abolishes the state, not government.

Pevvania wrote:And the Wikipedia definition:

"Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system."

The last line here proves your entire argument wrong, as communism is a non-hierarchical system.

Pevvania wrote:So, anarchism is necessarily stateless. But according to "an"-coms, it's not. Take an Anarchist Memes Facebook page definition:

"Anarchism means queer liberation, working class power, smashing the patriarchy, combating racism, destroying fascism, building socialism"

Or another "an"-com I came across: "Do you oppose all hierarchical and dominance? Do you oppose all centralization of power? Do you support democracy? If you said yes to all 3, you are an anarchist!"

Democracy means government.

....right, the people who believe in a classless, stateless society and wish to achieve it by immediate abolition of the state obviously don't see anarchism as stateless.

Anarchism does queer liberation, working class power, smashing patriarchy, combating racism and destroying fascism. It usually, but not always, means building socialism.

Right, and anarchism means government too. Government =/= state.

Pevvania wrote:It's clear to me, unless someone can correct me, that for "an"-coms anarchism means "things I like".

Nope. Anarchism, to anarcho-communists, means a stateless system of direct democracy and common ownership of the means of production.

Pevvania wrote:Many of them don't believe in getting rid of the state at all.

A certain portion of anarcho-communists use the Marxian definition of the state, but the vast majority would abolish both the Marxian and Weberian definitions of "state", so, your point is meaningless.

Pevvania wrote:Just like how Tsardom came here a while back saying that Obama should have introduced totally socialised medicine to the US.

This is like a libertarian choosing between a Republican and a Democrat. To Tsar, he had to choose between state management and private management. Both of which were coercive, hierarchical, corrupt, exploitative and corporatocratic. I usually refrain from these "lesser of two evils" questions because both are unjustifiable.

Pevvania wrote:Libertarians can never ally with "an"-coms, because they do not fight for anarchism. They fight for government.

So many things wrong with this statement. First, stop using the term "libertarian", because you aren't one. That term was pirated from anarchists in the 1970s. It originally referred to French anarcho-communists (how ironic), then just anarchists in general.

Secondly, modern American "libertarians" fight for government, as do anarcho-capitalists, and mutualists. Primitivists, Syndicalists, Fascists, Monarchists....everyone but nihilists fight for government. Again, Government =/= state.

Third, and most importantly, if you continue to rationalize the existence of a state, as modern American "Libertarians" do, then of course you wouldn't ally with an ideology calling for it's abolition. However, those of us who understand the state's existence is inherent coercive know that it must be abolished, and we ally with anarcho-communists who share that goal.

To end this, please stop talking about anarchism, as you have displayed your lack of understanding of both the philosophy and the history of the movement. There are legitimate criticisms of anarcho-communism, but your argument presented none.

Source for the origin of the term "libertarian":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque

So, if we stretch the term that means "anarcho-communist", then it could include some other anarchists and possibly a Luxemburgist, but there is no way you can make a term that means "the abolition of the state and capitalism" apply to an ideology that supports both the state and capitalism. Neoclassical liberalism is not libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism is.

Miencraft wrote:That is the exact opposite of privatized.

Not really. The exact opposite of privatisation would be to nationalise it and ban other radio stations from forming. In the same way that we regulate the RMB, we should regulate what a radio station broadcasts. Also, an application process lets us have an official list of radio stations.

Samarian Imperium wrote:Not really. The exact opposite of privatisation would be to nationalise it and ban other radio stations from forming. In the same way that we regulate the RMB, we should regulate what a radio station broadcasts. Also, an application process lets us have an official list of radio stations.

Putting something under government control = opposite of privatization.

The New Sea Territory wrote:Trying to imply anarcho-communism isn't a form of anarchism is baseless. You would have to completely disregard over a hundred years of philosophical thought and the largest example of an anarchist society in history, since the Free Territory was an anarcho-communist zone.

There is a difference between "an"-coms and an-coms. The latter believes in abolishing the state and practising their beliefs without coercing others, and is a very, very rare breed indeed.

The New Sea Territory wrote:I always find it hilarious when someone who doesn't believe in anarchism tells anarchists they don't believe in anarchism.

I do believe in anarchism. But I am not a dogmatist.

The New Sea Territory wrote:At face value, that is wrong. Anarchism abolishes the state, not government.

Right, and anarchism means government too. Government =/= state.

So "an"-coms are perfectly OK with a state as long as it's not called a state? Cool.

The New Sea Territory wrote:The last line here proves your entire argument wrong, as communism is a non-hierarchical system.

Which takes centralised coercion and government to achieve.

The New Sea Territory wrote:....right, the people who believe in a classless, stateless society and wish to achieve it by immediate abolition of the state obviously don't see anarchism as stateless.

"Direct democracy" is a cushy little term used in place of "government by mob rule". I don't see the point in an "anarchist" philosophy that still believes in coercion, hierarchy and control.

The New Sea Territory wrote:Anarchism does queer liberation, working class power, smashing patriarchy, combating racism and destroying fascism. It usually, but not always, means building socialism.

Not necessarily. Anarchism means believing in the abolition of the state. Those things may be achieved under anarchy, but that is, by definition, not what anarchism is.

The New Sea Territory wrote:Right, and anarchism means government too. Government =/= state.Nope. Anarchism, to anarcho-communists, means a stateless system of direct democracy and common ownership of the means of production.

Mob rule and theft. Lovin' that abolition of hierarchy. Because it's not hierarchy if the majority f*ck over the few rather than the other way around!

The New Sea Territory wrote:This is like a libertarian choosing between a Republican and a Democrat. To Tsar, he had to choose between state management and private management.

So he believes in a state over voluntary and private interaction. Thanks for proving my point.

The New Sea Territory wrote:Both of which were coercive, hierarchical, corrupt, exploitative and corporatocratic.

Private management is the antithesis to all of these things, except hierarchical, but even then the lines are blurred since the managers depend on their employees in the same way that the employees depend on their managers.

The New Sea Territory wrote:So many things wrong with this statement. First, stop using the term "libertarian", because you aren't one. That term was pirated from anarchists in the 1970s. It originally referred to French anarcho-communists (how ironic), then just anarchists in general.

Yes, I am. You know nothing about me, so stop telling me what I am and what I'm not. As Murray Rothbard said, "The straw man is used by those who have absolutely no argument left."

The term liberal was pirated from us by soc-dems in the early 20th Century, but we don't complain, because 'libertarian' suits us fine: we believe in liberty. Most of the original "libertarians" are either statists, "anarcho"-statists or Marxist brick-throwers.

If snake comes along and says "I am a lion", and then an actual lion comes along saying the same thing, by your definition the snake is the real lion because he made a claim to the name first. This does not change the fact that the snake is indeed a snake. Huh, come to think of it, you've indirectly admitted to your support for Lockean property rights and labour-mixing. Well done.

The New Sea Territory wrote:Secondly, modern American "libertarians" fight for government, as do anarcho-capitalists, and mutualists. Primitivists, Syndicalists, Fascists, Monarchists....everyone but nihilists fight for government. Again, Government =/= state.

An-caps and libertarians fight for rules, but not government. Such rules are based on property, so are dispersed very widely.

The New Sea Territory wrote:Third, and most importantly, if you continue to rationalize the existence of a state, as modern American "Libertarians" do, then of course you wouldn't ally with an ideology calling for it's abolition. However, those of us who understand the state's existence is inherent coercive know that it must be abolished, and we ally with anarcho-communists who share that goal.

Straw man, straw man, and yet more straw men. I consider myself a voluntaryist. Just because I don't fit into your dogmatic labels and archetypes doesn't mean that I don't believe in freedom. As you've repeatedly proven, "an"-coms don't really believe in abolishing the state. They just believe in a state that's more compatible with muh feels.

The New Sea Territory wrote:To end this, please stop talking about anarchism, as you have displayed your lack of understanding of both the philosophy and the history of the movement. There are legitimate criticisms of anarcho-communism, but your argument presented none.

I don't care about the history of the movement if it's full of statists and mob rulers.

Your entire argument can be summed up as "Statism is OK as long as I call it anarchism and put the power of coercion into the hands of many people rather than a few."

Miencraft, Liberosia, The New United States, Muh Roads, Austex

In my opinion, anarchism is BS. How the hell do you expect the private sector to flourish without a state to flourish in? Altruism? How do you expect capital to flow freely in a stateless world? Altruism?

There has to be a state, not to regulate, but to observe and maintain everything not in the private sector (the police, the military...)

Conservative Christian States Of America wrote:In my opinion, anarchism is BS. How the hell do you expect the private sector to flourish without a state to flourish in? Altruism? How do you expect capital to flow freely in a stateless world? Altruism?

There has to be a state, not to regulate, but to observe and maintain everything not in the private sector (the police, the military...)

The private sector flourishes because people need what it provides.

In a perfect world, everything is private sector, and if you need something from it, you go buy it. Where do you get the money? Well, hell of a lot of opportunity for that.

Capital flows in the same way. Need something? Buy it, or else make it yourself.

Ideally, there would be no state, but in the real world it doesn't seem like that is very likely, so a very minimal one should work as long as it is itself strictly regulated.

Miencraft wrote:The private sector flourishes because people need what it provides.

In a perfect world, everything is private sector, and if you need something from it, you go buy it. Where do you get the money? Well, hell of a lot of opportunity for that.

Capital flows in the same way. Need something? Buy it, or else make it yourself.

Ideally, there would be no state, but in the real world it doesn't seem like that is very likely, so a very minimal one should work as long as it is itself strictly regulated.

That's what I said-altruism. We need a minimal state to at least be a pillar for everything.

Conservative Christian States Of America wrote:In my opinion, anarchism is BS. How the hell do you expect the private sector to flourish without a state to flourish in? Altruism? How do you expect capital to flow freely in a stateless world? Altruism?

There has to be a state, not to regulate, but to observe and maintain everything not in the private sector (the police, the military...)

There are billions of people who engage in market processes. If the state collapsed, they would not allow the disappearance of force to destroy markets. People would voluntarily organise to protect trade. The police would simply be replaced by private security forces.

Miencraft, Muh Roads

Conservative Christian States Of America wrote:That's what I said-altruism. We need a minimal state to at least be a pillar for everything.

Altruism is "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others".

In other words, you give up X in exchange for nothing except for making someone else better.

Exchanging money for a good or service is not inherently altruistic.

The New Sea Territory wrote:[spoiler=SNIP]Trying to imply anarcho-communism isn't a form of anarchism is baseless. You would have to completely disregard over a hundred years of philosophical thought and the largest example of an anarchist society in history, since the Free Territory was an anarcho-communist zone.

Anyway, if you have been learning about anarcho-communism, then you would understand that anarcho-communism is not a system itself but a theory of achieving communism, which is a "classless, stateless, moneyless society where workers democratically manage the collectively owned means of production and goods are distributed according to need". Anarcho-communism rejects Marx's idea of a socialist state as a transition stage and calls for the immediate abolition of both capitalism and the state.

I always find it hilarious when someone who doesn't believe in anarchism tells anarchists they don't believe in anarchism.

At face value, that is wrong. Anarchism abolishes the state, not government.

The last line here proves your entire argument wrong, as communism is a non-hierarchical system.

....right, the people who believe in a classless, stateless society and wish to achieve it by immediate abolition of the state obviously don't see anarchism as stateless.

Anarchism does queer liberation, working class power, smashing patriarchy, combating racism and destroying fascism. It usually, but not always, means building socialism.

Right, and anarchism means government too. Government =/= state.

Nope. Anarchism, to anarcho-communists, means a stateless system of direct democracy and common ownership of the means of production.

A certain portion of anarcho-communists use the Marxian definition of the state, but the vast majority would abolish both the Marxian and Weberian definitions of "state", so, your point is meaningless.

This is like a libertarian choosing between a Republican and a Democrat. To Tsar, he had to choose between state management and private management. Both of which were coercive, hierarchical, corrupt, exploitative and corporatocratic. I usually refrain from these "lesser of two evils" questions because both are unjustifiable.

So many things wrong with this statement. First, stop using the term "libertarian", because you aren't one. That term was pirated from anarchists in the 1970s. It originally referred to French anarcho-communists (how ironic), then just anarchists in general.

Secondly, modern American "libertarians" fight for government, as do anarcho-capitalists, and mutualists. Primitivists, Syndicalists, Fascists, Monarchists....everyone but nihilists fight for government. Again, Government =/= state.

Third, and most importantly, if you continue to rationalize the existence of a state, as modern American "Libertarians" do, then of course you wouldn't ally with an ideology calling for it's abolition. However, those of us who understand the state's existence is inherent coercive know that it must be abolished, and we ally with anarcho-communists who share that goal.

To end this, please stop talking about anarchism, as you have displayed your lack of understanding of both the philosophy and the history of the movement. There are legitimate criticisms of anarcho-communism, but your argument presented none.[/spoiler]

Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron. You seem adamant that government=/=state, but that is a delusional thought. State means "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory." So you oppose the idea of imaginary/arbitrary lines on a map to divide government? Do you suppose that your proposed tyranny by majority just applies to everyone, even to people located in places beyond the control of your "non-state" government of direct democracy? Your whole philosophy is based on misguided idealism. Lets be real. [B]A government can only exist in a geographic area that it can control with force[/B]. This means government=state.

Anyone Remeber the categories of government relevant here.

Anarchy Liberal:Post-Revolution Embryonic Society Conservative:Lawless Wasteland Economy:Libertarian Personality:Libertarian Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Anarchism Overview:No state actually exists.

Authoritarian Democracy Liberal:Mouth-Breathing Creationists Conservative:Slightly Oppressive But A Little Discipline Never Hurt Anyone State Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Centrist Ideology:Semi-Populism Overview:Citizens have little freedom except some say in the government.

Benevolent Dictatorship Liberal:Temporary Liberal State of Emergency Conservative:Temporary Conservative State of Emergency Economy:Libertarian Personality:Libertarian Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Feudalism Overview: A dictatorship run by someone who pays no attention to the people and allows them to do whatever they want, except challenge the government.

Capitalist Paradise Liberal:Corporate Slave State Conservative:Decent Hard Working Self-Starters Economy:Libertarian Personality:Centrist Politics:Centrist Ideology:Capitalism Overview:No restrictions whatsoever are placed on trade; civil rights and political rights aren't repressed, but economic rights are central.

Capitalizt Liberal:Self-Congratulatory Merchant Bankers Conservative:Freedom-Loving Libertarians Economy:Libertarian Personality:Libertarian Politics:Centrist Ideology:Anarcho-Capitalism Overview:It's all about business. Civil rights are generous.

Civil Rights Lovefest Liberal:Brave Progressives Conservative:Nation-Hating Hippies Economy:Centrist Personality:Libertarian Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Anarcho-Socialism/Anarcho-Communism/Anarcho-Collectivism Overview:Libertarian rule, but with less emphasis on the economy and more on civil and political rights.

Compulsory Consumerist State Liberal: Consumerist Wage Drones Conservative: Aspirational Workers State Economy:Libertarian Personality:Centrist Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Corporatism Overview:Like Capitalist Paradise, but the government doesn't allow dissent.

Conservative Democracy Liberal: Conservative Hell Conservative: Conservative Paradise Economy:Centrist Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Religious Democracy Overview:People are free to vote, but people use it to outlaw civil rights.

Corporate Bordello Liberal:Blood-Sucking Capitalist Leeches Conservative:Patriotic Business Zone Economy:Libertarian Personality:Centrist Ideology:Capitalist Democracy Overview:Free market, free elections, and not-so-free merchandise. Civil rights are moderate; Political rights are generous.

Corporate Police State Liberal:Halliburton Conservative:Entrepreneurial Freedom Zone Economy:Libertarian Personality:Authoritarian Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Libertarian Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Authoritarian Corporatism Overview: The government is big business. Individuals have few rights and have to buy from the top corporations.

Corrupt Dictatorship Liberal:Well-Meaning Dictatorship Conservative:Corrupt Liberal Dictatorship Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Centrist Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Stalinist Communism Overview:A totalitarian state in which the government will interfere with everything, lowering economic and political rights, and adopting a fluctuating civil rights policy.

Democratic Socialists Liberal:Ordinary Caring Intelligent World Citizens Conservative:Hell Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Centrist Politics:Centrist Ideology:Communism Overview:Average political rights, while the government is omnipresent and the government has much say in the economy, with citizens having few economic rights.

Father/Mother Knows Best State Liberal:Suspiciously Conservative Democracy Conservative:Suspiciously Liberal Dictatorship Economy:Centrist Personality:Centrist Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Monarchism Overview:The government allows moderate freedoms, but has final say like a parent.

Free Market Paradise Liberal:Randriods Conservative:Paradise Economy:Libertarian Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Conservative Democracy Overview:People are free to vote and make money, but have few civil rights.

Inoffensive Centrist Democracy Liberal:Fascists Conservative:Communists Economy:Centrist Personality:Centrist Politics:Centrist Ideology:Republicanism Overview:The people have a mix of political and civil rights as well as security.

Iron Fist Consumerists Liberal:Imperialist Pig Dog Oppressors Conservative:Champions of Commerce Economy:Centrist Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Fascism Overview:This is an oppressive state that focuses on the economy. Supply and Demand are the two commandments.

Iron Fist Socialists Liberal:Equality and Tolerance Society Conservative:Inevitably Bloody Results of Liberal Ideals Mugged by Reality Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Libertarian Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Communist Dictatorship Overview:The state is omnipresent and will provide everything for its people except political and economic freedom.

Left-Leaning College State Liberal:Paradise Conservative:Deluded Tax and Spend Hypocrites Economy:Centrist Personality:Libertarian Politics:Centrist Ideology:Liberalism Overview:What if college students ruled the world? Civil rights are the main priority, followed by political rights.

Left-Wing Utopia Liberal:Utopia Conservative:Drugged Out Hippies Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Libertarian Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Egalitarian Democracy Overview:The democratic government grants broad civil and political rights but keeps a tight lease on business.

Liberal Democratic Socialists Liberal:Open-Minded Education State Conservative:Ivory Tower Reality Disconnect Zone Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Centrist Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Socialist Democracy Overview:There is a centralized economy, but with more democracy and political rights than Democratic Socialists.

Libertarian Police State Liberal:Slightly Overzealous Peoples Democracy Conservative:Government Enforced Political Correctness Society Economy:Centrist Personality:Libertarian Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Benevolent Monarchism Overview:The state doesn't do anything to interfere with your private life, yet will require you to register everything down to your sneakers with a bureau of some sort.

Moralistic Democracy Liberal:Narrow-Minded Backwoodsy Bigots Conservative:Ordinary Decent Hard Working People Economy:Centrist Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Centrist Ideology:Theocracy Overview:The people have a say in government, but choose to ban everything.

New York Times Democracy Liberal:Corporate-Dominated Sham Democracy Conservative:New York Crimes So-Called Democracy Economy:Centrist Personality:Centrist Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Democracy Overview:Liberal democracy, but with elections heavily influenced by the media.

Psychotic Dictatorship Liberal:Fascist Dictatorship Conservative:Communist Dictatorship Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Dictatorship Overview:Corrupt, authoritarian state, where everyone is the government's toy.

Right-Wing Utopia Liberal:Corrupt Thieving Uneducated Fascist Fundamentalists Conservative:Utopia Economy:Libertarian Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Centrist Ideology:Conservative Republicanism Overview:A conservative state where little change is desired or put into action. Religion plays the role of the media.

Scandinavian Liberal Paradise Liberal:Normal Conservative:Gay Marriage State Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Libertarian Politics:Centrist Ideology:Egalitarianism Overview: High taxes and civil rights, but a weak economy without economic rights.

Tyranny By Majority Liberal:Tyranny by Bourgeois Conservative:Thieves Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Populism Overview:Pure democracy without civil rights.

I included the name, the liberal name, the conservative name, the three metrics, the real life ideology, and the overview of each and every type of government here.

Also, anyone read The Seven Great Anarchist which explores William Godwin, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Max Stirner, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Benjamin Tucker, and Leo Tolstoy?

I use the Conservatie setting because I like it better than the Liberal setting and I like seeing more than one name of the government type due to the regular one only being dashed through and the new name next to it in red. I'm also moving toward Capitalizt due to more political freedom with my free speech being sacrosanct decision recently.

So... an-caps; question:

What happens when a community can't decide on set of rules that everyone agrees on? Where do you draw the line at "everybody can pick what laws they choose to adhere to, to generate communities where those laws are upheld"? What happens if a neighbourhood of racist >one colour of skin< decide they want to remove any minorities from their community of >other colour of skin<? It's not an option for the people of >other colour< to move out >> or else you can make the same argument for nations, yet these people would be surrounded by a community that wants to oust them from their homes or incur violence on them.

Now, even if >people of other colour< can hire a Private Military Company to defend them - which assumes there is one willing to serve them at a good price - the result could still be very very ugly.

How are situations where real human beings (who often don't follow logical economics, lets be honest) that ardently dislike each other but cannot get away from each other going to be better resolved under an an-cap system? Racism, Religious Hatred, Xenophobia and Sexism are things that are often curtailed by the government (talking Western Democracy here) - it acts a beneficial mediator and peacemaker between groups that, given half a chance, would often rather be at each other's throats. What systems would be in place to avoid this in an an-cap society?

Interesting discussion... I accidentally decided to jail animal liberationists....

The English Post-War Confederacy wrote:Interesting discussion... I accidentally decided to jail animal liberationists....

The only other option were to tax meat or mandate vegetarianism if I remeber all the options.

So guys, I have moved to a new home and it will take a week for internet to be installed, I will try to be on when I can but it will be very limited activity. No I am not disappearing, just waiting on the internet.

Your State wrote:The only other option were to tax meat or mandate vegetarianism if I remeber all the options.

Nope, the only other options were to tax meat, mandate vegetarianism, or do absolutely nothing.

Remember, guys, you can dismiss issues if all the options are crap.

Pax Osca wrote:So... an-caps; question:

What happens when a community can't decide on set of rules that everyone agrees on? Where do you draw the line at "everybody can pick what laws they choose to adhere to, to generate communities where those laws are upheld"? What happens if a neighbourhood of racist >one colour of skin< decide they want to remove any minorities from their community of >other colour of skin<? It's not an option for the people of >other colour< to move out >> or else you can make the same argument for nations, yet these people would be surrounded by a community that wants to oust them from their homes or incur violence on them.

Now, even if >people of other colour< can hire a Private Military Company to defend them - which assumes there is one willing to serve them at a good price - the result could still be very very ugly.

How are situations where real human beings (who often don't follow logical economics, lets be honest) that ardently dislike each other but cannot get away from each other going to be better resolved under an an-cap system? Racism, Religious Hatred, Xenophobia and Sexism are things that are often curtailed by the government (talking Western Democracy here) - it acts a beneficial mediator and peacemaker between groups that, given half a chance, would often rather be at each other's throats. What systems would be in place to avoid this in an an-cap society?

pretty sure people like hans hermann hoppe actually openly advocate for communities that want to get rid of the jews/muslims, presumably through not selling houses to them, making it impossible for them to live in the area or just making a "no jews" contract when they move in. basically the longer you look at it the more often you will see insanely authoritarian things like hans "no darkies/those who support democracy must be physically removed" hoppe", stefan "your DRO watches your every move every day and makes your life hell if you can't afford it" molyneux or just murray "free market in children" rothbard and people will be unable to really do say anything against it because well it's not the state doing so it's basically ok if they do it.

[spoiler]"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error." - Ludwig von Mises

SO IT BEGINS

Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification and falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts. They are a necessary requirement of any intellectual grasp of historical events.

Praxeology, basics of Austraian Economics

---

Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.

-Murray Rothbard

---

In a stateless society, contracts with DROs are required to maintain any sort of economic life – without DRO representation, citizens are unable to get a job, hire employees, rent a car, buy a house or send their children to school. Any DRO will naturally ensure that its contracts include penalties for violent crimes – so if you steal a car, your DRO has the right to use force against you to get the car back – and probably retrieve financial penalties to boot.

How does this work in practice? Let’s take a test case. Say that you wake up one morning and decide to become a thief [or lose your job and can't pay your DRO premium]. Well, the first thing you have to do is cancel your coverage with your DRO, so that your DRO cannot act against you when you steal [you dirty thieving poor, you]. DROs would have clauses allowing you to cancel your coverage, just as insurance companies have now. Thus you would have to notify your DRO that you were dropping coverage. No problem, you’re off their list.

If you cancel your DRO insurance, your name goes into a database available to all DROs.

What happens then? Remember – there is no public property in the stateless society. If you’ve gone rogue, where are you going to go? You can’t take a bus – bus companies won’t take rogues, because their DRO will require that they take only DRO-covered passengers, in case of injury or altercation. Want to fill up on gas? No luck, for the same reason. You can try hitchhiking, of course, which might work, but what happens when you get to your destination and try and rent a hotel room? No DRO card, no luck. Want to sleep in the park? Parks are privately owned, so keep moving. Getting hungry? No groceries, no restaurants – no food! What are you going to do?

Obviously, those without DRO representation are going to find it very hard to get around or find anything to eat.

-Stefan Molyneux

---

In a covenant...among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.

Bums and inferior people will likely support his egalitarian policies, whereas geniuses and superior people will not. For [this] reason...a democratic ruler undertakes little to actively expel those people whose presence within the country constitutes a negative externality (human trash which drives individual property values down).

A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person… but falls instead into the same moral category as an animal – of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a “free good”) or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest). On the other hand, there are members of the human species who are capable of understanding the [value of the division of labor] but...who knowingly act wrongly… [B]esides having to be tamed or even physically defeated [they] must also be punished… to make them understand the nature of their wrongdoings and hopefully teach them a lesson for the future.

What the countercultural libertarians failed to recognize, and what true libertarians cannot emphasize enough, is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives.

Each territory GLO will have entrance requirements (for example, no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus) and those who [do] not meet those entrance requirements [will] be kicked out as trespassers.

Due to democracy the genetic quality of the population has most certainly declined

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[/spoiler]

The English Post-War Confederacy wrote:Interesting discussion... I accidentally decided to jail animal liberationists....

You accidentally put thieves in jail?

https://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2015/03/01/index.html

i'm the kind of person that doesn't pay attention to the news page so i'm posting this for the benefit of my fellow news ignorers (this is seriously important you should probably read it)

Still on hiatus but I dropped by for a second and saw this:

The New Sea Territory wrote:Source for the origin of the term "libertarian":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque

So, if we stretch the term that means "anarcho-communist", then it could include some other anarchists and possibly a Luxemburgist, but there is no way you can make a term that means "the abolition of the state and capitalism" apply to an ideology that supports both the state and capitalism. Neoclassical liberalism is not libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism is.

The term "libertarian" was first coined by philosophers as a description of those who believed in free will, not Joseph Dajacque. However, even if you said that ancoms have the "right" to use that label, it would still be an etymological fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

^also that is a great bullet against socialists who pull out the etymology card.

Alyakia wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2015/03/01/index.html

i'm the kind of person that doesn't pay attention to the news page so i'm posting this for the benefit of my fellow news ignorers (this is seriously important you should probably read it)

Not shocked. They only moved up to a standard SSL encryption last year, and the server falls every week.

But then again people don't exactly have the same password on their PayPal account and their political simulator. Anyway, that's interesting, if not surprising.

Austex wrote:You accidentally put thieves in jail?

We don't even have jails... :P

Austex

Miencraft wrote:Nope, the only other options were to tax meat, mandate vegetarianism, or do absolutely nothing.

Remember, guys, you can dismiss issues if all the options are crap.

Dismissing stuff isn't a luxury here given that you can only get one each 12 hours at most. Also, I hate those sanctimonious being a vegetarian makes me better than you types which biased me towards jailing animal libertationists.

I'm getting close to achieving anarchy status I think!

Post self-deleted by Narland.

I deleted the post (retiring for the night), and too much brain fog to be consice. Have a good night all.

Narland wrote:I deleted the post (retiring for the night), and too much brain fog to be consice. Have a good night all.

Goodnight :)

So what do I need to do for a spot on the map?

The English Post-War Confederacy wrote:So what do I need to do for a spot on the map?

Citizenship and your first born. Pretty sure that's what [nation=short]Miencraft[/nation] wants.

Your State wrote:Dismissing stuff isn't a luxury here given that you can only get one each 12 hours at most. Also, I hate those sanctimonious being a vegetarian makes me better than you types which biased me towards jailing animal libertationists.

1) Sometimes the issues are just so terrible that you have to dismiss them in order to not turn your country into hell.

In fact, I haven't answered any issues in months. My country is right where I want it to be, no reason to muck around.

2) I thought for a second you were being one of those sanctimonious "being-a-vegetarian-makes-me-better-than-you" types because you didn't do what I just did, but then I realized what you were saying because what I originally thought made no contextual sense.

The English Post-War Confederacy wrote:So what do I need to do for a spot on the map?

Muh Roads wrote:Citizenship and your first born. Pretty sure that's what [nation=short]Miencraft[/nation] wants.

But those are not things to do, Roads.

What you need to do is me.

[/r-rated joke]

Muh Roads, Ankha

Miencraft wrote:

But those are not things to do, Roads.

What you need to do is me.

[/r-rated joke]

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/swiggity-swooty-gif.gif

The English Post-War Confederacy

I wasn't affected. Happy dance.

Muh Roads wrote:http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/swiggity-swooty-gif.gif

LAWL

My nation is doing so much better.

Pevvania wrote:Board Members and prospective Board Members - what do you think about this idea: privatising the radio system? It would abolish Libertatem Radio and replace it with competing private radio stations. The President/executive could no longer make an official radio station.

What do you think about that? If this idea gets enough support, I can start drafting a bill right away.

Sounds good - Fortside Rock Radio could use some competition.

And remember, I accept requests via telegram, at either of my main nations (this one or the IRU one).

Conservative Christian States Of America wrote:In my opinion, anarchism is BS. How the hell do you expect the private sector to flourish without a state to flourish in? Altruism? How do you expect capital to flow freely in a stateless world? Altruism?

There has to be a state, not to regulate, but to observe and maintain everything not in the private sector (the police, the military...)

Quite so - that's why I consider myself a minarchist.

Humpheria wrote:I wasn't affected. Happy dance.

Nor I. Sad to hear about this site vulnerability, but I'm glad they were able to contain it.

On another note, how was everyone's weekend?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

^also that is a great bullet against socialists who pull out the etymology card.

Oh believe me it's a crime that's far from exclusive to the socialists.

I've seen many a Libertarian/An-Cap/Communist/Feminist/Animal Rights Activist/etc... pull a "oh no! That's not the definition of X! X actually means Y! Your definition is just the layman's definition, it's not correct!"

You can defend anything if you redefine the parameters of it long enough.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Pax Osca wrote:Oh believe me it's a crime that's far from exclusive to the socialists.

I've seen many a Libertarian/An-Cap/Communist/Feminist/Animal Rights Activist/etc... pull a "oh no! That's not the definition of X! X actually means Y! Your definition is just the layman's definition, it's not correct!"

You can defend anything if you redefine the parameters of it long enough.

That is why defining the terms beforehand is important.

He who defines the terms frames the argument. He who frames the argument wins the debate. He who wins the debate must do so graciously to win over the opposition.

The Radio Denationalisation Act

FIRST DRAFT

Section I

This Act hereby dissolves Libertatem Radio

Section II

The creation of an official or regional government-managed radio station is hereby prohibited

Section III

As per Article VII, Section I of the Constitution, this Act affirms the right of any nation to operate their own radio station

Section IV

Libertatem Radio is encouraged to be replaced by competing, privately run radio stations

Authored by Pev

Pax Osca wrote:So... an-caps; question:

What happens when a community can't decide on set of rules that everyone agrees on? Where do you draw the line at "everybody can pick what laws they choose to adhere to, to generate communities where those laws are upheld"? What happens if a neighbourhood of racist >one colour of skin< decide they want to remove any minorities from their community of >other colour of skin<? It's not an option for the people of >other colour< to move out >> or else you can make the same argument for nations, yet these people would be surrounded by a community that wants to oust them from their homes or incur violence on them.

Now, even if >people of other colour< can hire a Private Military Company to defend them - which assumes there is one willing to serve them at a good price - the result could still be very very ugly.

How are situations where real human beings (who often don't follow logical economics, lets be honest) that ardently dislike each other but cannot get away from each other going to be better resolved under an an-cap system? Racism, Religious Hatred, Xenophobia and Sexism are things that are often curtailed by the government (talking Western Democracy here) - it acts a beneficial mediator and peacemaker between groups that, given half a chance, would often rather be at each other's throats. What systems would be in place to avoid this in an an-cap society?

The aggressors would be violating the NAP. True, racism and collectivism could thrive in certain parts of the world. But in an anarchist society many of these problems would go away, since many racial problems are caused by government. Of course, collectivist ethnic prejudices form in the mind, but government policies in the West like the welfare state and the minimum wage have eroded the prospects of minorities and made integration harder. Other parts of the world like Zimbabwe outright discriminatr against certain minorities.

Let's talk about an issue that's contentious amongst libertarians: the ethics of taking welfare, or accepting state services.

As taxation is theft, it is perfectly ethical taking state services in order to get at least some of a return on an investment that's been made against your will. It's not preferable, of course.

Republic Of Minerva, Samarian Imperium

Pevvania wrote:Let's talk about an issue that's contentious amongst libertarians: the ethics of taking welfare, or accepting state services.

As taxation is theft, it is perfectly ethical taking state services in order to get at least some of a return on an investment that's been made against your will. It's not preferable, of course.

I once followed this train of thought, however I now believe that taking welfare Is unethical. When you take welfare from the state your participating in the government's scam and taking some hard working man's money. Not to mention, your still taxed on some forms of welfare. It is my belief, and maybe I'm wrong for believing such, but if no one took welfare then there would be no need for such and hopefully the whole program would be abolished.

Pevvania wrote:Let's talk about an issue that's contentious amongst libertarians: the ethics of taking welfare, or accepting state services.

As taxation is theft, it is perfectly ethical taking state services in order to get at least some of a return on an investment that's been made against your will. It's not preferable, of course.

Muh Roads wrote:I once followed this train of thought, however I now believe that taking welfare Is unethical. When you take welfare from the state your participating in the government's scam and taking some hard working man's money. Not to mention, your still taxed on some forms of welfare. It is my belief, and maybe I'm wrong for believing such, but if no one took welfare then there would be no need for such and hopefully the whole program would be abolished.

The truly principled would reject it. But if you can get something for free (granted you paid taxes), why wouldn't you?

Pevvania wrote:The aggressors would be violating the NAP. True, racism and collectivism could thrive in certain parts of the world. But in an anarchist society many of these problems would go away, since many racial problems are caused by government. Of course, collectivist ethnic prejudices form in the mind, but government policies in the West like the welfare state and the minimum wage have eroded the prospects of minorities and made integration harder. Other parts of the world like Zimbabwe outright discriminate against certain minorities.

Government hasn't proved itself any good at bringing together races anyhow. Many parts of the US are still heavily segregated, not by law obviously, but the fact remains. I feel i can confidently say any of us who grew up in the US have certainly heard people say things like "oh that's a black, white, Latino etc neighborhood." The census statistics don't lie either... not that I'm supporting the census Bureau lol.

Austex wrote:The truly principled would reject it. But if you can get something for free (granted you paid taxes), why wouldn't you?
It only sounds free until you get back to work. You realize how much you put in and how little you actually get back.

Take for instance, if you didn't have to pay the taxes towards welfare while you were working, you would have more money to spend on investments with a lucrative return that would actually amount to something. You'd make more cash in the long run so you have something to fall back on if you were to be unemployed for a certain time period.

Also thank you for the votes thusfar. Good luck to Ankha!

Ankha

Muh Roads wrote:Also thank you for the votes thusfar. Good luck to Ankha!

And yourself.

Muh Roads

Pevvania wrote:The Radio Denationalisation Act

Yes! Kids Bop radio here I come!!

(I kid, I kid)

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