Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Hey everyone. I've made a list of all the regions we have liberated.:
Revolutionary Committee Of Slavia
Colony Of The Libertatem Empire
As you can see above, we have liberated 75 regions! :)
Yay for us! I swear this is the greatest place on earth.
Does Libertatem have a minister of Foreign Affairs?
Indeed, it does. From the Libertaten Constitution:
"The Manager of the State shall cooperate with the founder and the President regarding all non-military foreign affairs with alien regions and nations excluding role playing."
That would be Lack There Of.
oh.
This agreement is called The Nation States Monetary Bank. In this there are 3 sectors.The Monetary Nation States Fund is one of those three. It deals with the actual distribution of wealth. Any kind of income is based off of the different types of Economical Bases such as Powerhouse or Frightening. That is all added to The Monetary Nation States Fund. 5% of that is added to ACA treasury and the rest is calculated for legitimacy then sent back to you region. A region can do anything with their money that they want. That includes buying stocks in a nation or region. Region Stock is based off their weekly income. You cannot buy stock in a private Region unless you are in it. Stock will earn you a 20 Regional Standard dividend. Your Regional Standard is the type of currency your region runs on. Your Regional Standard is calculated in the second piece of The Nation States Monetary Bank, The Global Treasury. You must choose between these currencies.
-Yen=0.0098 Standard
-Dollar=1 Standard
-Pound=1.65 Standard
-Krown=0.050 Standard
-Egyption Pound=0.14 Standard
By signing this you are recognizing that these Standards may go down or up in Value. If you take out a loan from The Nation States Monetary Bank or from another region then you MUST PAY IT BACK. They may also charge interest on this loan. The outstanding debts must be posted in your factbook. And all debts will be calculated in The Nation States IRS. The Nation States Monetary Bank is hosted and fun in ACA. All Income Tax from your region will count as weekly income in ACA. If you would like to change currencies then you must wait 4 weeks before you have converted. If you owe a region more than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 then the founder must leave the region. Money can be used for anything such as help to fights back a raid. On WA Delegate Campaigns.
By signing this agreement you are stating:
1.You have a Treasury
2.You can go bankrupt
3.You have actual in game money
4.The value of your money can go down
5.You are a piece of a global community
All money and transactions are made through ACA and all regions must have a Puppet which is named after the region it is from. If you owe somone a dept that you cannot pay back then it is their choice with what to do with you. Any changes to the Agreement you must comply with.
Founder:
Another region liberated from the clutches of Marxism :)
Thank you Mister Founder for your visit, we will review your proposal soon.
Also, I'm going to put up a poll as to what our armed forces are to be called. I'm really not feeling it for Libertatem Army. It's too basic.
I'm in favor of this. But, i would advise against term limits.. and put in a clause that states if no one votes the current board remains incumbent.
I agree, term limits are a bad idea. I think I'll delegate the task of drafting this amendment to Humpheria.
This is pure gold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDXuPQ9ML9E
I accept, give me a couple of days.
Back after my little vacation.
Welcome back.
Another region liberated:)
Neo-Confederate, I sent Blahbania a telegram.
Term Elasticity Rules Management
TERM Act
Constitutional Amendment I
Section I
Purpose
Clarification of this proposal's purpose:
Subsection I
To amend the span of the term of members of the Board
Subsection II
To clarify the dispute of term limits
Subsection III
To clarify the question of election inactivity
Section II
Amending the span of the term of members of the Board
Subsection I
The term span of Board members will be changed from three months to one month
Subsection II
The election will take place between the 25th and 27th day of each month
Subsection III
In the event that a member leave for any reason there will be a special two-day election
Section III
Clarify the dispute of term limits
Subsection I
There shall be no term limit for any member of the Board
Subsection II
All nations are eligible for multiple terms
Section IV
Clarify the question of election inactivity
Subsection I
In the event that no challenger step forward for a seat, the incumbent is the victor
Subsection II
In the event that no votes are cast, the incumbents are victorious
Subsection III
In the event that no nations step forward for a seat and the incumbent is not running, the President will appoint a nation to fill the position
The TERM Act is now open for a vote.
I hereby endorse the TERM Act. Please vote YEA.
YEA!
Yes!
Also, I voted "other," for the name. I suggest "Sons of Liberty."
yea
I vote "nay" on the TERM act
TERM Act
B- 3/5
M- 0/3
P- 1/1
H- 1/75
I voted for "Libertarian Revolutionary Army"
The LP has crafted a new platform, available for viewing here: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=lack_there_of/detail=factbook/id=211577 . In addition, an article regarding its contents has been published in the gazette
I switched to "Reagan's Riders."
I'm back after so long guys.
Welcome back :)
What took you so long?
I have noooooo idea.
I am thinking about doing a Parkour championship Sports RP if you are interested TG me.
I think it's time I updated the RLP platform. I authored it when I was a fairly moderate libertarian, so the economics bit needs to undergo an update.
I'm leaning towards Libertarian Revolutionary Army for the army name.
Yes, for some reason I love the name revolution.
I vote AYE on the TERM Act.
The Anti-Corporatist Party will eventually release a more specific platform and demonstrate practical steps to reducing the influence of totalitarianism in the region.
Goodbye Libertatem for now I am Leaving on a jet plane, don't know when I will be back again. I will send a puppet here.
Sorry to see you go! Enjoy your travels!
Libertatem still needs volunteers for operation south woods!! Please PM me!
TERM Act
B- 3/5
M- 1/3
P- 1/1
H- 1/75
I vote in favor of TERM.
I vote in favor of The TERM ACT.
TERM Act
B- 4/5
M- 1/3
P- 1/1
H- 2/75
The Libertarian Philosophy of Freedom
Since the Enlightenment, philosophers in the fields of ethics and morality have tried to make a case for liberty, or, as it is traditionally considered, individual rights. These political philosophers have included men like John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, and many others. In this last century, Ayn Rand, a novelist who formulated her own philosophy known as Objectivism, has made a major impact on the lives of millions of people.
The culmination of all these attempts at making a case for liberty can be concluded in a single notion: the non-aggression principle (NAP). This principle holds that it is wrong for one individual human being to initiate physical force against another under any circumstance (i.e. libertarians reject the notion of consequentialism, utilitarianism, or ends justify the means ethics). However, the libertarian philosophy of freedom holds also that the defense of oneself from aggression, or retaliation, is indeed a moral right, since it is predicated on maintaining the life of the individual who is in that instance the victim of physical violence.
To justify the NAP, libertarians have taken a variety of approaches, although most try to persuade other individuals to accept the ethic by pre-supposing the existing moral ideal of all individuals: that to initiate physical force against another human being is wrong. Theoretical justifications for liberty include Objectivism, Argumentation Ethics, Natural Rights, Subjectivism, etc. All of these intellectual justifications share the same objective: to prove the commonly held belief that nearly all human beings hold to be, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, inalienable and self-evident.
Libertarianism and the ethics/morality it endorses are based on objective principles, namely the fact of self-ownership. Is it really questionable that each individual owns him or herself? That there is no one who has a higher claim to a mans consciousness and body than that very consciousness? Of course not, to think other-wise would be to contradict the facts of reality. Drawing from this fundamental fact, most libertarians conclude the necessity for private property rights. If man owns himself, and may only sustain his life through property accumulation and manipulation, then a moral right to that property must exist, inherently, if it is legitimately obtained (i.e. without force). A right to property is nothing short to saying a man has a right to keep himself alive. Those who deny individuals the right to keep and hold their own private property claim a right to rule over others and to violate the fundamental and moral right to self-ownership.
Establishing the NAP, and the illegitimacy of initiating physical force, libertarians conclude all action that does so is immoral, and therefore illegitimate. Furthermore, that all agents who use such violence are also immoral until their wrongs have been stopped or compensated for. This includes organizations and agents like the mafia, certain types of revolutionaries (socialists and fascists usually), thieves, murderers, rapists, defrauders, and the State (arguments against the State can be found in other articles).
Libertarians do not hold that common notions of selfishness and selflessness are good or evil (although self-interest is a fact of life), rather that the application of physical force to either of those two are fundamentally corrupt and immoral. For example, in a political context, the libertarian would criticize BOTH the welfare system (commonly understood as altruism) and corporate subsidies (success of some at the expense of others, a negative form of selfishness). So the nature of political libertarianism does not endorse, in most cases, altruism or selfishness. It is decidedly neutral up until one person or group of people violates the rights of another person or another group of people.
And so the philosophy of liberty can be seen as an advocacy for a non-violent and free society, where all people deal with each other based not on force, but on voluntary cooperation and agreements. There is only one society in which the fundamental principle of non-aggression can exist, one system where force and physical violence is not accepted and institutionalized, and that is a free market.
A free market, taken to its basic level, is the natural result of people cooperating peacefully with each other. Trade and conflict resolution in a free market means trading subjective value for subjective value. Producing something through the use of ones mind and labor, contracting with other people to help in the objective of production, and selling to people who wish to enrich their lives with ones product. It is the ONLY system consistent with the natural rights of man, with the very nature of man, and with any rational moral system.
The proof of the legitimacy of the free market can be found in a study of economics, both theoretical and empirical. If there is one concrete fact of history, explained by economic theory, the freer mankind has traditionally been to accumulate and trade property, the more prosperous we as a species have also been. It is no coincidence that the era of liberalism paralleled an era of explosive technological, productive, and population growth. The very nature of the market system is to produce goods and services for the majority of consumers, making the masses better off (i.e. raising real wages consistently throughout time through a benign deflation).
The reason for this prosperity is seen in the core principle of trade: if it is completely voluntary, exchanging value for value, then any two or more parties engaged in such a trade will benefit and be better off than they were before the occurrence of the trade. The cornerstone of the free market is the entrepreneur, the one who produces the goods people so desire, and so is the fundamental ingredient to the success of humanity. Ideologies like fascism, socialism, and communism which claim society can do without entrepreneurs, investors, and capitalists are fundamentally mistaken; production requires three components: capital investment and profits, labor, and reason (mans mind). Reason can only be applied in a society based on property rights and non-aggression, which is why only the free market can beget the prosperity all of humanity so desires.
And it is only through embracing such a free and voluntary society that mankind may continue on a road to prosperity, not a road to serfdom. If we embrace this philosophy of liberty, there is no limit to what humanity can do.
Capitalism is not the only system consistent with the natural rights of man.
Who made the natural rights of man anyways? Whose to say he was right?
If you'll notice, I did not use the term "capitalism", the corrupted term coined by Marx, once in that introduction to the libertarian philosophy.
No one "made" the natural rights of man. They simply...exist. Just as A=A, man is man. You ask what is "right"? The right is life, and the good is a right to maintain it. As each individual man must use his reason to survive, the good is freedom. The right is liberty.
I am not against any form of association if it does not violate the NAP. Live with communal property, share your wealth, but never, never, never threaten another human being with physical force against him or his property. To do so makes one the scum of the earth and the dregs of humanity.
Whose to say he was right?...
If I am he, and I am merely asserting the rights I already have, then it is by my authority I claim to be a human being.
Very nice piece, Lone Star. But I have a few questions.
Under voluntaryism/anarchism, who would enforce contracts and justice? I've heard some say private arbitration firms, but couldn't one party easily reject any settlement? And if that occurred, would the use of force then be justified?
Are not natural rights subjective? I don't ascribe to this view, but there is a case to be made that rights cannot exist without institutions to protect them. This has been used to justify everything from unemployment insurance to state-funded sex changes as 'human rights'. How would you counter this, and how do you discern between objective rights and privileges?
Thank you, President Pevvania, I will do my best to answer your questions.
On the issue of justice in a free market: a market system is based on fore sight and the continual use of property. Justice, in arbitration and in accepting verdicts, hinges mainly on reputation. In other words, the cleaner the reputation someone has, the less potential liability they will be in future contracts and business dealings. Now, the use of force by an arbitration/defense company may be justified in retaliation if perhaps someone stole something from another person and, that person refusing to comply with arbitration, the company saw itself as justified in getting the stolen object back for their customer (Robert P. Murphy has talked about this extensively). Must of the justice done in a free society would be through companies: 1) nearly all items stolen or money stolen would be insured, taking the individual victim out of the picture early, 2) every individual would be subscribed, likely, to a larger organization (be it company, union, community group, etc.) It would not devolve into violence, probably, because to do so would be an enormous waste or resources for the larger organizations (i.e. that kind of crap we leave to the governments of the past). I am not going to say the voluntary society is perfect by any means; it is fallible because man is fallible. However, it is a FAR BETTER alternative to the State: 1) the State is a bureaucratic, monopolistic nightmare that really can't do anything without the help of the private sector, 2) it is the number one agent of murder in the history of mankind (when I say murder, I mean men murdering other men), in the 20th century alone the State killed over 100,000,000 people, and 3) the "justice" system of the current State is not justice at all; it is racist in many instances, sexist is many others, dominated by lawyers who don't allow a majority of cases to even go to court; the endless piles of laws and ridiculous restrictions on our social lives in the name of "justice" does the term a disservice (i.e. people get thrown in prison for smoking a plant that makes them happy...) The principle of anarcho-capitalism and voluntarism is this: that the same rules that apply to competition in general apply to the government, and that there is nothing more urgently needed than a free market in the most important aspects of our lives. Strike the root!
The question of Objectivity is more philosophical, and I for one prefer Rand's analysis or morality, predicated on survival. Moral/natural rights are by definition NOT subjective. Subjectivity are the dominions of the altruists and the nihilists, who don't believe in any objective reality (for the latter), and who set up arbitrary moral codes (for the former). For a more complete understanding of nihilism I urge you to read one of H.L.Mencken's books on Nietzche. First, before discussing objectivity, I must point out that many voluntarists are nihilists who don't believe in objective rights, but who prefer the free market for personal reasons other than absolute morality.
Now onto Objectivity. Moral rights can be derived from a series of premises which are true by virtue of being true. These include but are not limited to: A=A, man is alive, man will die, Objective reality exists, Objective morality exists, there are universal aspects of all human beings. *I have logical proofs for the fourth and fifth subjects in that list, TG me if you want them. I don't want to rewrite John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged (its kinda huge), but I'll paraphrase briefly how natural rights and morality is derived. All of the above are objective facts: they are true by virtue of being true. Existence exists in non-contradictory, absolute, and simple. From this, we follow a logical deduction of the necessary conditions for each individual to live on this earth as a man. When I say as a man, I mean the ability to use reason as a means of survival; since man is a rational animal, the mind/reason is how he lives, therefore a moral system that universally applies to every individual human being must be derived from reason. And reason is merely the tool to sustain life; the life of ever individual human being the objective reality for each, and therefore the universal and objective value for every human being. Then we see that human life is the standard of value, and that all that destroys it is the evil and all that perpetuates it is the good, not in a utilitarian sense, but in a moral sense. Every individual action that destroys life is evil, and every action that builds it up is good. From this we get, obviously, property rights.
Now, morality is chosen. An individual can choose to use force (i.e. the commies and other looters), but this in no way makes it subjective, it just makes the aggressor a dick. The very definition of morality is really just universally preferred behavior, so when someone violates the natural rights of an individual, he's being immoral. The institutions that arise to ensure morality first must come from an inherent belief of the people that support the institutions: life is good, especially their lives. It takes more reason to clearly define actions that are moral or immoral, but some of the best proof that morality exists is seen in the vast majority of people who believe it is wrong to steal, wrong to kill, wrong to lie, etc. The people you really have to look out for are those who speak of a "greater good" or "common goal". Psychopaths like communists and fascists, or even utilitarian liberals. They are not moral, since they reject the very purpose of morality: providing universal principles to human choice and action, and instead opt for force in certain instances.
Thank you, Former President Lone Star. I started Atlas Shrugged and got to 15% of the book, so I have gotta finish it some time.
I vote YEA on TERM.
TERM Act
B- 4/5
M- 1/3
P- 1/1
H- 3/75
I like the sound of "Reagan's Riders".
No, better! "Reagan's Revolutionary Riders"!
I'm not so sure. We've already got the REAGAN Treaty, and something like the Libertarian Revolutionary Army is more indicative of our goals.
Why is everything named after Mr. Lower Taxes them increases Military (Which is already getting too much) spending.?
Forgot to say: welcome back, Time Alliance.
He's my idol because he could both reduce the power of the government and confront Communism abroad. Military spending is an urgent issue in contemporary America, but when you're in a serious war deficits are generally considered to be acceptable.
Forgive me, but what Serious War were we in?
The TERM Act has been declared passed with only NAY vote! It will be added to the Constitution effective immediately.
Hoorah
The one known to be of a lesser temperature than the others.
> Serious War
> Just a bunch of tiny wars. That we lost.
Tiny wars that represented something huge in the ideological context: the expansionism and attempted world domination of the Soviet Union.
In the words of Doge:
much nuclear
very empires
such tyranny
wow
DOOOOOOOOGE
Mr. President, you quoted Doge. WIll you marry me?
much commitment
very touchy
such length
concern
OH MY GAWD GUIZE
GET A ROOM
Shall I prepare a wedding cake, then?
Would you like extra gold on that?
Or would you prefer super-extra gold?
I always wanted a white wedding, do with that what you will. And don't be concerned, it will work out.
Your vague order has been interpreted as:
Give me all of the everything and I'll sort it out.
Exactly
Very misinterpreted
Much confusion
So marriage
Wow
Alright, that's enough of that. To protect to integrity of the region, the President and Chairman cannot get married. (No matter how much I want to.) I kid, of course, maybe.
GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.
Ahem.
Anyways.
So I re-watched T2 the other day. Gotta say, even now that's still some pretty good CGI.
Now to go find my T3 DVD.
I can't get enough of that film. So awesome. T3 is ok too. You ever seen Predator?
RLP platform has been updated.
Why is the Galt's gulch embassy being withdrawn?
Nevermind.
They were raided. Again.
We should probably do something about that.
It's just a tag raid, and when the founder comes back online he'll banject the raiders and reverse the changes.
ELECTION TIME!!!!!
Under the orders of President Pev, I am organizing late Board elections. Our current Board is:
Seat One: [nation=short]Muh Roads[/nation] RLP
Seat Two: [nation=short]Humpheria[/nation] RLP (Chairman)
Seat Three: [nation=short]Ronald Reagan and Rick Grimes[/nation] RLP
Seat Four: [nation=short]Miencraft[/nation] ACP (Minority Leader)
Seat FIve: [nation=short]Liberty Front[/nation] RLP
Incumbents, you HAVE to announce your candidacy too. 24 hours announcement, 48 hour election starting tomorrow at 4:00 EST. Feel free to throw your hat in, it is a great way to get involved. And interesting races make for better activity.
I would like to announce my candidacy for the second seat of the Board. I hope to continue to serve the people of Libertatem as a member of the Board. Vote Humpheria for Prosperity, Integrity, and Liberty.
I encourage as many of you as possible to run for the Board. And although I see no real point in the existence of the party, I hope that the ACP comes back to run in this month's races. Nothing better for quality than some healthy competition.
Better yet, the Objectivists and Anarchists should join the LP and re-dub themselves as factions instead of parties.
Attention, incumbents, contenders, and voters!
The Anti-Corporatist Party of Libertatem has expanded its factbook and is now recruiting new members! To join, simply express your interest whether on the RMB or via telegram.
Remember - We The People are stronger than any government, and we defy any NationState that believes government to be a ruler and not a partner.
I like the platform, but you haven't been too vocal on the issues of party and newspaper privatisation, something I find curious.
Anywho, I'd like to sign up to ACOP.
I'm announcing candidacy for the 5th seat.
For the LOP?
Yessir.
Awesome!
Isn't it?
Welcome to the party.
I forgot to mention that I was also a proponent of newspaper privatization, and supported the bill that made the party system privatized! How could I have forgotten that?
ACOP is for privatized...heck, anything, really. Private ownership is ownership the state doesn't have.
I seek to continue my run on the fourth seat.
Also, seeking to change over to ACOP and run as that.
Welcome to the party. And as such, ACOP stands behind the incumbent's campaign. Miencraft for fourth seat!
The DRP's Factbook is now under Construction.
I can't remember whether or not I already joined the RLP as a secondary party.
Hello
The Official Factbook of the Democratic-Republican Party:
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_time_alliance/detail=factbook/id=205180
So, are you out of the RLP now?
I regret to say, I will not be running for re-election.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.