Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Miencraft wrote:See: seatbelt example

It didn't make sense. I don't go and kill a baby if I'm in an accident!

Libiceland wrote:It didn't make sense. I don't go and kill a baby if I'm in an accident!

You're not understanding his point...

Libiceland wrote:You do consent to getting pregnant because you decided to go ahead anyway!

Then why bother using birth control? By using birth control, you are literally saying "I do not want to get pregnant".

By driving a car am I consenting to an accident? Am I consenting to getting shot by going to a firing range? Am I consenting to freezing to death by living in a cold area?

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:It's the so-called moderates I have a problem with. Republicans have been given dozens, maybe even hundreds, of seats in legislatures over the past 7 years in order to repeal Obamacare. I love how the RINOs seem to think that now they're in government they feel they should 'moderate' their promises. Sometimes it feels like Joe Manchin is more trustworthy than losers like Murkowski.

But yeah, go Rand. If he can make the bill as free market as possible and still get it through the Senate, that'd be great.

Don't say RINO

Slam poetry is the pinnacle of human achievement

Fascist Dred

Wow I can see I missed some arguing.

know I'm not going to try and force my opinions on you.

these are just my thoughts.

1. All humans have the right to life (when you become a human, is entirely determined by your opinion).

2. There is no way someone can accidentally .it is always preventable (except in case of abuse). therefore you hold responsibility. even if you didn't intend for it to happen. you took a risk, and that's your fault.

3. I don't get the seat belt thing either. because if it is self inflicted (because of my bad driving) then yes, the death of anyone involved is my fault. but if someone else crashes into me then its their fault. I don't see how this strengthens your argument.

Libiceland

Humpheria wrote:Don't say RINO

Ok, how about PRIC - Paleoconservative Republican only In Callsign?

Libiceland wrote:It didn't make sense. I don't go and kill a baby if I'm in an accident!

You're missing the point. Just because something is a potential outcome of something doesn't mean you actually want that outcome to happen, or that you would accept that it did happen.

If you're actively trying to decrease the chances of something happening, it means you don't want that thing to happen.

If you wear a seatbelt, you're actively trying to decrease the chances that you get hurt or killed if you get hit. Can you still be hurt or killed if you get hit? Yes. Do you want to? No.

If you use birth control, you're actively trying to decrease the chances that you get pregnant. Can you still get pregnant? Yes. Do you want to? No.

Rateria

Miencraft wrote:You're missing the point. Just because something is a potential outcome of something doesn't mean you actually want that outcome to happen, or that you would accept that it did happen.

If you're actively trying to decrease the chances of something happening, it means you don't want that thing to happen.

If you wear a seatbelt, you're actively trying to decrease the chances that you get hurt or killed if you get hit. Can you still be hurt or killed if you get hit? Yes. Do you want to? No.

If you use birth control, you're actively trying to decrease the chances that you get pregnant. Can you still get pregnant? Yes. Do you want to? No.

Look if someone crashes into you its their fault. Simply because they made a mistake. it has nothing to do with weather or not you had a seat-belt or if you were actively trying to decrease the chances that you get hurt or killed .

On the other hand if you crash. its your fault. again it has nothing to do with weather or not you were wearing a seat-belt.

I still don't get how this makes any sense.

Libiceland

Objectivist State wrote:I think people should look deeper into what he actually has done and accomplished and make their assumptions on that without going off on "Trumpo the Clown"-presentation of Trump on the liberal media. Of course, the "TRUMP IS OUR GOD EMPRAH"-larping meme children are better off ignored as well. They are not a serious movement with a serious ideology or anything like that. I yearn for the pre-alt right days of the right, when there was just the old and new right and all the different schools of thought on the right. Alt-right are more of an upsurge of racial and national socialism and collectivism as well as the larping children's republic of Kekistan, if anything. These people shouldn't really play around with things they have no understanding of.

I don't think any presidents accomplishments should be particularly noted, recognized, or celebrated.

But to be honest, Trump fuels extreme hatred.

American ignorance at it's finest.

Muh Roads wrote:I don't think any presidents accomplishments should be particularly noted, recognized, or celebrated.

But to be honest, Trump fuels extreme hatred.

American ignorance at it's finest.

You're a bad hombre

Fascist Dred, Libiceland, Pulceria

Muh Roads wrote:I don't think any presidents accomplishments should be particularly noted, recognized, or celebrated.

But to be honest, Trump fuels extreme hatred.

American ignorance at it's finest.

"Trump fuels extreme hatred"

You know what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Explain your position.

Libiceland, Pulceria

Pulceria wrote:Look if someone crashes into you its their fault. Simply because they made a mistake. it has nothing to do with weather or not you had a seat-belt or if you were actively trying to decrease the chances that you get hurt or killed .

On the other hand if you crash. its your fault. again it has nothing to do with weather or not you were wearing a seat-belt.

I still don't get how this makes any sense.

An active attempt to decrease the chance of something unintended happening means you don't want that thing to happen - therefore, consent to sex cannot automatically mean consent to carry a child because it's possible to actively reduce the chances of pregnancy.

The States Of Balloon wrote:"Trump fuels extreme hatred"

You know what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Explain your position.

I have no desire to explain anything to you.

Pevvania wrote:You're a bad hombre

Sure. Someone who wants people to fully experience absolute freedom and liberty is terrible.

Muh Roads wrote:I have no desire to explain anything to you.

Then I'll say most Trump hate comes from the left and you are wrong

The States Of Balloon wrote:Then I'll say most Trump hate comes from the left and you are wrong

you're entitled to your opinion.

Bernie represented those who could not succeed despite working their hardest. Trump represents people who feel they have been ignored for the purpose of "progressiveness". Hillary represents the opposition to both of those groups.

The States Of Balloon wrote:Bernie represented those who could not succeed despite working their hardest. Trump represents people who feel they have been ignored for the purpose of "progressiveness". Hillary represents the opposition to both of those groups.

They're all just.. awful.

https://youtu.be/Ig2tItOIRag

Miencraft wrote:An active attempt to decrease the chance of something unintended happening means you don't want that thing to happen - therefore, consent to sex cannot automatically mean consent to carry a child because it's possible to actively reduce the chances of pregnancy.

Yes. I already know you believe that. I disagree on the grounds that you are always responsible for the result of your actions.

What I don't see is how the seat belt example has anything to do with your argument.

(What would I give for a formal debate right know)

Libiceland

Pulceria wrote:I disagree on the grounds that you are always responsible for the result of your actions.

What I don't see is how the seat belt example has anything to do with your argument.

Well, yeah, you are, but that doesn't mean that the outcome was intended, or that you agreed to have it be that outcome. The argument that consent to sex = consent to pregnancy has that one major flaw: it doesn't recognize the fact that consenting to something doesn't mean consenting to have all possible outcomes happen. That's where the seatbelt example comes in. You wear a seatbelt to reduce your chances of injury in a car crash. You use birth control to reduce your chances of pregnancy. In both cases, you're actively doing something to reduce the chance that the undesired outcome occurs.

You decide to drive a car. You wear a seatbelt. Your deciding to drive a car doesn't mean you automatically "consent" to the possibility of being injured - it means you recognize that chance and you've taken precautions to reduce that chance.

You decide to have sex. You use protection and there are other methods of birth control involved as well. Your deciding to have sex doesn't mean you automatically "consent" to the possibility of having a child - it means you recognize that chance and you've taken precautions to reduce that chance.

Now, just to be clear, I'm still largely against frivolous abortions for stupid reasons like "Well we didn't intend to have a kid", but as I've argued before, the mother still has ownership rights over her own body, and by extension is totally within her rights to remove something from her own body that she thinks doesn't belong there. The child, of course, still has the right to life, but that's why this isn't something that any government should regulate - allow abortions, no questions asked, and you're needlessly violating right to life. Prohibit all abortions and you violate right to self-determination. Since the government doesn't get to say "well X's rights are more important than Y's rights", the compromise - and only acceptable solution - is to get the government out of it entirely and let individual practitioners decide if they want to do abortions or not.

Rateria, Pulceria

Also as of right now the vote for TSA (nice acronym bro) is 2 Yes and 1 No.

Miencraft wrote:Well, yeah, you are, but that doesn't mean that the outcome was intended, or that you agreed to have it be that outcome. The argument that consent to sex = consent to pregnancy has that one major flaw: it doesn't recognize the fact that consenting to something doesn't mean consenting to have all possible outcomes happen. That's where the seatbelt example comes in. You wear a seatbelt to reduce your chances of injury in a car crash. You use birth control to reduce your chances of pregnancy. In both cases, you're actively doing something to reduce the chance that the undesired outcome occurs.

You decide to drive a car. You wear a seatbelt. Your deciding to drive a car doesn't mean you automatically "consent" to the possibility of being injured - it means you recognize that chance and you've taken precautions to reduce that chance.

You decide to have sex. You use protection and there are other methods of birth control involved as well. Your deciding to have sex doesn't mean you automatically "consent" to the possibility of having a child - it means you recognize that chance and you've taken precautions to reduce that chance.

Now, just to be clear, I'm still largely against frivolous abortions for stupid reasons like "Well we didn't intend to have a kid", but as I've argued before, the mother still has ownership rights over her own body, and by extension is totally within her rights to remove something from her own body that she thinks doesn't belong there. The child, of course, still has the right to life, but that's why this isn't something that any government should regulate - allow abortions, no questions asked, and you're needlessly violating right to life. Prohibit all abortions and you violate right to self-determination. Since the government doesn't get to say "well X's rights are more important than Y's rights", the compromise - and only acceptable solution - is to get the government out of it entirely and let individual practitioners decide if they want to do abortions or not.

Thank you for explaining your view. But the driving analogy still doesn't fit. because pregnancy is self inflicted ( i'm sure there is a better word), while a crash is inflicted by others. So when consenting to ride in a vehicle you are not consenting to getting crashed into, but you are consenting to getting injured, if it is your fault. See what I mean.

Under this rule if you are not forced into sex by someone else. Than you are consenting to the possibly becoming pregnant. Therefore (deep breath) in the case of unwanted pregnancy. when sex was voluntary, your right to your property is nullified because you consented to the risk of pregnancy, meaning the only right that applies in the child's right to life, meaning government not only can but must prohibit the purposeful death of the child.

In other words if you crash your car its always your fault.

P.S. if you wish to continue debate on this topic I suggest that we argue via telegram. So as not to clutter up the message board.

Libiceland

Pulceria wrote:See what I mean.

Eh, yeah, I see what you mean - I could probably have come up with a better analogy but I'm still gonna just stick with that one! Why not.

Pulceria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:What is disgusting is not supporting property rights for females. It's their womb, not the states.

It's not their life thats being ended however. And how can you say property rights if it is an entirely different person? are we saying that people own other people? I know thats not what you meant but it is a conclusion that can be pulled from that statement

My opposition to abortion comes from that it is the ending of a life without due process. People have a right to life and no one should be denied there rights without due process. So unless you can somehow convict a child of a capital offense...

Libiceland wrote:We are talking about killing a baby here

This is exactly the point. It all comes down to whether you extend constitutional rights to the unborn.

The Aradites wrote:Mainstream support against abortion isn't argued that way unfortunately and I usually becoming a religious argument a lot.

Now this might just be the circles I've run in but i've never seen people argue for the legal aspect of abortion in religious terms. The moral argument is often in religious terms terms but conflating the moral and legal arguments as the same is a mistake.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Except they abandoned Johnson for neoconservative McMuffin so

I said more libertarian than people give it credit for. I never claimed that their very libertarian. I might add W. Andrew McCullough got 6.7% for AG.

And before McMullin Johnson polled at 23% only beaten by his homestate of New Mexico.

Also to everyone I just responded to, I'll be away until Saturday night, so I'll have to wait until then to reply to any responds. I'll be looking forward to them!

Libiceland, Pulceria

Miencraft wrote:...

Consent to sex != consent to have something live in you for nine months then continue to be a drain on your resources for at least eighteen years afterwards

Question: does being an inconvenience qualify one for the death sentence? Plus there is nothing that says that you must keep the child adoption services exist. (although that can open a whole other can of worms) their are plenty of people that can't have children that would give anything for a child. Plus people have a right to life. I'm sure that we all agree, being a Libertarian region, that no one should be denied there rights without due process. If we take the assumption that unborn peoples are, well people, how can we justify killing it unless it posses an imminent threat to the mothers life? If we are not how ever willing to take accept the proposition that the unborn are people, then who gets to define people? that seems really dicy to me. Also pretty F#(ked up.

(Again I won't be able to reply until Saturday night)

Libiceland, Pulceria

Post self-deleted by Libiceland.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Question: does being an inconvenience qualify one for the death sentence?

No, but if a doctor wants to perform that procedure there should be nothing stopping them.

Jadentopian Order

Miencraft wrote:The only discrimination that should be forbidden is when the government is doing the discrimination. If a private company only wants to hire X group, or doesn't want to serve Y group at all, that's their own business. They'll be driven out of business for it because people aren't going to like it, but that's their own choice and it should be left to be their choice.

I'm not against that, but I was thinking something else

Why is everyone against this amendment? It makes complete sense and ends the messy and disorganised transitions of power currently in place for the president.

Jadentopian Order

Czekania wrote:I'm not against that, but I was thinking something else

Good thing you haven't said what you were thinking.

Libiceland

Pevvania wrote:Why is everyone against this amendment? It makes complete sense and ends the messy and disorganised transitions of power currently in place for the president.

With the way Presidential elections happen, the waiting period here can be as low as two days. Sure, you can confirm the entire cabinet in one day - discounting cabinet appointees not being there on that particular day, which would delay the confirmation process regardless of a wait between election an inauguration, assuming you don't just go ahead with confirmation votes regardless of whether or not the appointees are actually there - but that's the thing. You can confirm the entire cabinet all at once in one day. So there's not all that much inconvenience executive-side. And the cabinet isn't even mandatory. All cabinet members serve at the President's discretion, so he could very well go in with an empty cabinet and keep it empty the entire time. And the cabinet, really, is the only thing I could see actually becoming any kind of inconvenience.

We don't have transfers of power the way real nations do. We don't need to spend a whole lot of time preparing for the new guy to come into office. We don't have a mansion for him to move into, we don't have a company of bodyguards that needs to be trained to deal with this specific president... The only thing we really need to do when a new guy comes into office is change the regional officer perms to the new guy and confirm a cabinet, and then change one link in the RMB. It's not a very major transition so we don't actually need any real waiting period.

And even if we did a wait, we'd have to move the Presidential elections to a different time to get any valuable waiting period out of them. Presidential election week is the last Monday-Friday week in the election month. So if the next month starts on Saturday, they get elected Wednesday, then spend Thursday and Friday waiting then just immediately go into office on Saturday. If the next month starts on the next Wednesday after the election ends, they have to wait until next Wednesday. It's not a very good idea to have a waiting period while the Presidential election can happen at different times each month - which really is the only good way to make sure his election stays within a single month, unless we move the elections to the start of the month instead or shorten his elections to just one day.

Speaking of the amendment, current count is 3 Yes 3 No.

Miencraft wrote:With the way Presidential elections happen, the waiting period here can be as low as two days. Sure, you can confirm the entire cabinet in one day - discounting cabinet appointees not being there on that particular day, which would delay the confirmation process regardless of a wait between election an inauguration, assuming you don't just go ahead with confirmation votes regardless of whether or not the appointees are actually there - but that's the thing. You can confirm the entire cabinet all at once in one day. So there's not all that much inconvenience executive-side. And the cabinet isn't even mandatory. All cabinet members serve at the President's discretion, so he could very well go in with an empty cabinet and keep it empty the entire time. And the cabinet, really, is the only thing I could see actually becoming any kind of inconvenience.

We don't have transfers of power the way real nations do. We don't need to spend a whole lot of time preparing for the new guy to come into office. We don't have a mansion for him to move into, we don't have a company of bodyguards that needs to be trained to deal with this specific president... The only thing we really need to do when a new guy comes into office is change the regional officer perms to the new guy and confirm a cabinet, and then change one link in the RMB. It's not a very major transition so we don't actually need any real waiting period.

And even if we did a wait, we'd have to move the Presidential elections to a different time to get any valuable waiting period out of them. Presidential election week is the last Monday-Friday week in the election month. So if the next month starts on Saturday, they get elected Wednesday, then spend Thursday and Friday waiting then just immediately go into office on Saturday. If the next month starts on the next Wednesday after the election ends, they have to wait until next Wednesday. It's not a very good idea to have a waiting period while the Presidential election can happen at different times each month - which really is the only good way to make sure his election stays within a single month, unless we move the elections to the start of the month instead or shorten his elections to just one day.

I was actually somewhat worried about this amendment, but now I'm agreeing with his argument. Transitions like the ones we've had have worked, but I don't remember there being a confirmation process for cabinet officials until recently.

Pevvania wrote:Why is everyone against this amendment? It makes complete sense and ends the messy and disorganised transitions of power currently in place for the president.

I see what you mean. I suppose if the transition goes poorly after the upcoming presidential election, we can reconsider the amendment.

Rateria wrote: but I don't remember there being a confirmation process for cabinet officials until recently.

That'd be because we've only had confirmations since the Fourth Amendment. So far, a completely 100% brand new cabinet hasn't needed to be sworn in, but since it could all be done in one day I don't really see the need for much of a wait, especially when how long that wait is varies depending on what the election month happens to look like.

Rateria

Miencraft wrote:Good thing you haven't said what you were thinking.

Yeah, woulda left everyone triggered

Miencraft wrote:No, but if a doctor wants to perform that procedure there should be nothing stopping them.

So are you saying that if a doctor want's to do something government cant intervene?

Also "if the doctor want's"? Since when did the doctor make life and death decisions for the patients? ( remember the child is a patient to)

Libiceland

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Pulceria wrote:So are you saying that if a doctor want's to do something government cant intervene?

No. I'm saying the government isn't allowed to intervene, therefore the decision on whether or not to provide abortion services is up to individual practitioners.

Miencraft wrote:I'm saying this isn't an area in which the government is allowed to intervene, therefore the decision is up to individual practitioners.

Well I definitely disagree on that. I believe that whenever someone is killed. Except in case of assisted suicide (where both doctor, and person that is going to die, agree to it). The government must intervene to insure proper justice.

As you can see this is not assisted suicide (the baby doesn't agree), therefore government must intervene.

Libiceland

Pulceria wrote:Well I definitely disagree on that. I believe that whenever someone is killed. Except in case of assisted suicide (where both doctor, and person that is going to die, agree to it). The government must intervene to insure proper justice.

As you can see this is not assisted suicide (the baby doesn't agree), therefore government must intervene.

The government cannot intervene because, first of all, they're not given this power.

Secondly, as the issue of abortion is an issue of conflicting rights, the government cannot be an arbiter, because the government does not get to decide whose rights are more important. The conflict is, of course, the mother has ownership rights over her own body, but the infant also has right to life - this, clearly, creates a conflict between the mother being able to do anything she wants to her own body, and by extension anything in it; and the infant having a right to life, meaning she can't just kill it. But then she's got complete control over her own body so she can if she wants to. But it's a human so it has right to life. But it's in her body, but it's a human, but it's in her body, etc. etc.

The government is not the arbiter in this situation. The government doesn't get to decide that one person's rights are more valid or more important than another person's rights. And, in the United States, by virtue of not being explicitly permitted, any federal action on abortion is illegal. The ideal solution is to just leave it alone and let individual medical professionals decide if they want to provide abortion services or not. You want an abortion, you go to someone who does abortions. You don't want one, you don't go to one of those doctors. Simple, and the free market wins in the end. Double good for everyone.

To clarify, "this power" in the first line specifically being in reference to abortion - but people also have the right to defend themselves so it's not really the government's duty to protect them either.

Trump = 👍🏻

Fascist Dred

Miencraft wrote:The government cannot intervene because, first of all, they're not given this power.

Actually government can, to protect rights.

Miencraft wrote:

Secondly, as the issue of abortion is an issue of conflicting rights, the government cannot be an arbiter, because the government does not get to decide whose rights are more important. The conflict is, of course, the mother has ownership rights over her own body, but the infant also has right to life - this, clearly, creates a conflict between the mother being able to do anything she wants to her own body, and by extension anything in it; and the infant having a right to life, meaning she can't just kill it. But then she's got complete control over her own body so she can if she wants to. But it's a human so it has right to life. But it's in her body, but it's a human, but it's in her body, etc. etc.

as I stated earlier.

Pulceria wrote:Thank you for explaining your view. But the driving analogy still doesn't fit. because pregnancy is self inflicted ( i'm sure there is a better word), while a crash is inflicted by others. So when consenting to ride in a vehicle you are not consenting to getting crashed into, but you are consenting to getting injured, if it is your fault. See what I mean.

Under this rule if you are not forced into sex by someone else. Than you are consenting to the possibly becoming pregnant. Therefore (deep breath) in the case of unwanted pregnancy. when sex was voluntary, your right to your property is nullified because you consented to the risk of pregnancy, meaning the only right that applies in the child's right to life, meaning government not only can but must prohibit the purposeful death of the child.

In other words if you crash your car its always your fault.

P.S. if you wish to continue debate on this topic I suggest that we argue via telegram. So as not to clutter up the message board.

Miencraft wrote: You want an abortion, you go to someone who does abortions. You don't want one, you don't go to one of those doctors. Simple, and the free market wins in the end. Double good for everyone.

Everyone that is, except the baby!

Miencraft wrote:To clarify, "this power" in the first line specifically being in reference to abortion - but people also have the right to defend themselves so it's not really the government's duty to protect them either.

Not their duty to protect! how does that work. Are you saying government shouldn't try to stop murders? or track down criminals?

Libiceland

Pulceria wrote:Not their duty to protect! how does that work. Are you saying government shouldn't try to stop murders? or track down criminals?

It's a nice function of the government, but people are perfectly capable of protecting themselves - or, they would be, if they were armed. We expect the government to protect our rights - that's why we create governments to begin with - but ultimately we're the ones whose job it actually is to protect ourselves.

Pulceria wrote:as I stated earlier.

Well that really doesn't touch at all on the fact that the government does not have the power to decide whose rights are more important. It just flat out is not a thing they can do.

OK. I have come to realize where your opinion are coming from. I can see that we simply have a difference of political opinion (obvious by how different our countries are). I now that I can't convince you that your wrong. And vice versa.

You have done an amazing job at defending your views.

so Miencraft what do you say to. Agreeing to disagree :)

No hard feelings?

Rateria

Pulceria wrote:No hard feelings?

Nah, I'm just going to tactically nuke you. Y'know, because that's what friends do.

Rateria, Pulceria

I wish you could declare war on other countries

Czekania wrote:I wish you could declare war on other countries

I don't. I would lose :)

Lmao college rape trials

Current vote on the TSA is 6-4. With current No votes, it needs 8 to pass.

Bar menu

[url=https://www.nationstates.net/nation=fascist_dred/detail=factbook/id=844323]

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

I actually have no problem with the content of the proposed amendment, it doesn't really affect me or a majority of Libertatem in any great way, what I actually have a problem with is what the amendment represents.

The Constitution is only supposed to be amended to make meaningful changes that are absolutely necessary and I don't think we should go around amending it because a small group of people feels as if the start of the presidential term is not set up in the most perfectly organized manner.

We shouldn't be spending valuable time on the Senate floor talking about whether a presidential term should start on the 1st or the 2nd or the 3rd or the 4th.

When I voted for my senators, I expected them to enact critical change to the laws of Libertatem; not quibble about something so trivial as this.

Miencraft

GUYS - let's all welcome back [nation=short]Renegalis[/nation] to the region, a true veteran of Libertatem who's been with us for a long time.

Narland, Muh Roads, Rateria

[B]Office of the Founder of the RLP[/B]

The RLP is henceforth going to be officially counting its members in the party's factbook. Please telegram me or Chairman Humpheria to let us know that you're members so we can count you. This is necessary for the next Presidential Election in case we hold a primary.

Rateria

We're halfway through the vote, and it's 6 to 5. With 5 nos, this needs 10 in favor to pass.

Spongebob Hemp pants is the pinnacle of human achievement

Fascist Dred

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=pevvania/detail=factbook/id=137128

Our platform and membership roster has been updated.

Rateria, Libiceland

California rejects single-payer healthcare system. Win!

Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Fascist Dred, Libiceland, Jadentopian Order, Czekania

Guys, I'm a citizen now! And I'm back from camp!

Narland, Rateria, Libiceland

Boes Othan wrote:Guys, I'm a citizen now! And I'm back from camp!

How was it?

Pevvania wrote:How was it?

I sang a lot. Stood a lot. Walked too much. But it was nice, the counselors were great. The food, not so much.

Pevvania, Narland, Rateria, Libiceland, Pulceria

Pevvania wrote:How was it?

Great. at least the camp I was at, was.

Boes Othan wrote:Guys, I'm a citizen now! And I'm back from camp!

What a coincidence we both just got back from a camp out.

Pevvania, Rateria

Boes Othan wrote:I sang a lot. Stood a lot. Walked too much. But it was nice, the counselors were great. The food, not so much.

Same Here. except I didn't sing all that much. :)

Boes Othan wrote:I sang a lot. Stood a lot. Walked too much. But it was nice, the counselors were great. The food, not so much.

Pulceria wrote:Great. at least the camp I was at, was.

What a coincidence we both just got back from a camp out.

Love camp. Were you guys both campers, then?

Narland, Pulceria

Pevvania wrote:Love camp. Were you guys both campers, then?

Camper/Backpacker (Dads the scoutmaster) I love the Out-doors. I Just got back from a timberline meeting/overnight-er (I'm a staff for a up coming timberline)

Pulceria wrote:Camper/Backpacker (Dads the scoutmaster) I love the Out-doors. I Just got back from a timberline meeting/overnight-er (I'm a staff for a up coming timberline)

I was at a choir camp in a college, sadly didn't get to camp in the wilderness.

Pulceria

Boes Othan wrote:I was at a choir camp in a college, sadly didn't get to camp in the wilderness.

That's cool. What choir do you sing in?

Pulceria wrote:That's cool. What choir do you sing in?

It was an all state choir camp. They teach us the music for the various rounds until we reach All State choir.

Pulceria

Why waste your time working when you can just be communist?

Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Fascist Dred, Libiceland

The States Of Balloon wrote:Why waste your time working when you can just be communist?

Because pie.

Narland

I also just wrote my first issue and submitted it. It was actually really fun to write.

Narland, Rateria, Libiceland, Pulceria

Casshmeeyousidehowbowdat

Fascist Dred

Boes Othan wrote:I also just wrote my first issue and submitted it. It was actually really fun to write.

Great! I hope it gets published.

We can always use a couple more good issue's.

Pulceria wrote:Great! I hope it gets published.

We can always use a couple more good issue's.

I wrote it over student loan debts and make crazy arguments over it. Freaking Lazy Party demolishing schools.

Rateria, Libiceland

Boes Othan wrote:I wrote it over student loan debts and make crazy arguments over it. Freaking Lazy Party demolishing schools.

Love it!!!!!!

Narland, Rateria

The States Of Balloon wrote:Casshmeeyousidehowbowdat

https://youtu.be/Gu10IiXVNBk

Who has permission for the discord bar?

Pulceria wrote:So your a Juris Naturalist. Me to!

(see the Uncle Eric books)

Yes very much so following from the Ancients throught to the Renaissance/Reformation/Puritan/Founding Fathers/21st Century Objective Realists which specifically rejects Kant's Non Sequitur and False Dichotomy of Value/Meaning (although it makes for some of the better Doctor Who episodes).

Libiceland wrote:I don't really like that act, or at least no some parts of it. Discrimination by individuals and private companies should be legal

Czekania wrote:Uhhhhhhh...

Think about it. When is discrimination a good thing and when is it a bad thing?

Discrimination of behaviour (Judicious Discrimination): kicking out rowdy, rude, crude, or meth addled hooligans who are more disruptive that what is proper for the venue is always good for business. The paying customers are appreciative and perchance will return.

Discrimination of being (Prejudicial Discrimination): kicking out willing paying and polite (for the venue) customers because their state of being (such as ethnicity) is bad for business--zero purchases from prospective paying customers who will never return (and they will let everyone on social media know what buttheads the owners are decreasing business viability even further.) Businesses who want to stay in business and stay ahead of the competition need to serve as many as possible.

Giving people (especially entrepreneurs) enough rope to metaphorically hang themselves for their economic stupidity brings about more responsible behaviour in society.

Government intervention always removes capital from society (to pay for the bureaucratic overhead)--less money in the marketplace for people, raising the cost of living. It further burdens the business productivity with unnecessary liability divesting profit for better products or services (higher cost for less quality) lowering market standards. There is less productivity, poorer quality goods and services, and less spending in the marketplace depriving the people of a higher standard of living. It boils down to making people that much poorer just to enforce an abstraction of unrealistic assumptions (that racism runs rampant without government control) to elicit a false sense of moral self-righteousness.

Historically it has been governments that have fostered bigotry to gain or keep power. Prejudice has no fertile soil to grow in an open and free market society where one's sense of purpose or sense of self-satisfaction comes in/from providing a product or a service to other people to their satisfaction at the most reasonable price agreed on by both. The only reasonable government action is to protect against coercion or fraud.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Utah is more libertarian than people give it credit for

It is a young and less populated State--give it time to Californicate. It is also a part of the Western Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Cultural Hearth which is slow-paced, easy going, and laid back compared to California and New York. It gives their brand of strong neoconservatism a sense of Libertarianism. I think that its sense of proper Libertarianism is illusory because of the general politeness and friendliness of the residents (live and let be). They are Liberty leaning NeoCons whereas Idaho tends toward Liberty leaning PaleoCons, and they both tend to reject Progressivist Socialism, but we both have our own flawed forms of statism that need to be curbed.

Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Venomringo, Libiceland, Pulceria

The greatest hits of United Environmentalist States Of Mhomen. May his memory live on.

What has this message board become ???

I dumping spot for random junk

hi this is the president of the united environmentalist states of mhomen

how are you ???

We need a constitution in libretatem. almost definately

yeah hippies!!!!

is catsup a gender???

I might want to run for a position , I'm good at politics

Hi guys!! It's my birthday soon

Humpy B****

I'm a member of our great region

I'm one of you

Hi guys

Your cafeteria lunch could kill you

Miencraft, Rateria, Venomringo, Libiceland, Jadentopian Order, Pulceria

Hey guys, I've updated the 'History of Libertatem' factbook again: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=pevvania/detail=factbook/id=828783

Now we've got two more fully written sections: 'Beginnings' and 'The Empire Age' (yes, we once had an empire).

Miencraft, Rateria, Venomringo, Fascist Dred, Libiceland, Jadentopian Order

Pevvania wrote:

Hi guys

Your cafeteria lunch could kill you

mhomen speaks the truth. I've had some pretty nasty school lunches.

Rateria, Pulceria

Pevvania wrote:The greatest hits of United Environmentalist States Of Mhomen. May his memory live on.

What has this message board become ???

I dumping spot for random junk

hi this is the president of the united environmentalist states of mhomen

how are you ???

We need a constitution in libretatem. almost definately

yeah hippies!!!!

is catsup a gender???

I might want to run for a position , I'm good at politics

Hi guys!! It's my birthday soon

Humpy B****

I'm a member of our great region

I'm one of you

Hi guys

Your cafeteria lunch could kill you

PREACH

Pevvania, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Pevvania wrote: 'The Empire Age'

You had a chance to call it the Age of Empires and you blew it.

Muh Roads, Rateria, Fascist Dred, Libiceland

Narland wrote:Yes very much so following from the Ancients throught to the Renaissance/Reformation/Puritan/Founding Fathers/21st Century Objective Realists which specifically rejects Kant's Non Sequitur and False Dichotomy of Value/Meaning (although it makes for some of the better Doctor Who episodes).

Think about it. When is discrimination a good thing and when is it a bad thing?

Discrimination of behaviour (Judicious Discrimination): kicking out rowdy, rude, crude, or meth addled hooligans who are more disruptive that what is proper for the venue is always good for business. The paying customers are appreciative and perchance will return.

Discrimination of being (Prejudicial Discrimination): kicking out willing paying and polite (for the venue) customers because their state of being (such as ethnicity) is bad for business--zero purchases from prospective paying customers who will never return (and they will let everyone on social media know what buttheads the owners are decreasing business viability even further.) Businesses who want to stay in business and stay ahead of the competition need to serve as many as possible.

Giving people (especially entrepreneurs) enough rope to metaphorically hang themselves for their economic stupidity brings about more responsible behaviour in society.

Government intervention always removes capital from society (to pay for the bureaucratic overhead)--less money in the marketplace for people, raising the cost of living. It further burdens the business productivity with unnecessary liability divesting profit for better products or services (higher cost for less quality) lowering market standards. There is less productivity, poorer quality goods and services, and less spending in the marketplace depriving the people of a higher standard of living. It boils down to making people that much poorer just to enforce an abstraction of unrealistic assumptions (that racism runs rampant without government control) to elicit a false sense of moral self-righteousness.

Historically it has been governments that have fostered bigotry to gain or keep power. Prejudice has no fertile soil to grow in an open and free market society where one's sense of purpose or sense of self-satisfaction comes in/from providing a product or a service to other people to their satisfaction at the most reasonable price agreed on by both. The only reasonable government action is to protect against coercion or fraud.

It is a young and less populated State--give it time to Californicate. It is also a part of the Western Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Cultural Hearth which is slow-paced, easy going, and laid back compared to California and New York. It gives their brand of strong neoconservatism a sense of Libertarianism. I think that its sense of proper Libertarianism is illusory because of the general politeness and friendliness of the residents (live and let be). They are Liberty leaning NeoCons whereas Idaho tends toward Liberty leaning PaleoCons, and they both tend to reject Progressivist Socialism, but we both have our own flawed forms of statism that need to be curbed.

Not gonna lie,I don't think it should be a thing to disriminate

Pevvania wrote:The greatest hits of United Environmentalist States Of Mhomen. May his memory live on.

What has this message board become ???

I dumping spot for random junk

hi this is the president of the united environmentalist states of mhomen

how are you ???

We need a constitution in libretatem. almost definately

yeah hippies!!!!

is catsup a gender???

I might want to run for a position , I'm good at politics

Hi guys!! It's my birthday soon

Humpy B****

I'm a member of our great region

I'm one of you

Hi guys

Your cafeteria lunch could kill you

Jadentopian Order wrote:mhomen speaks the truth. I've had some pretty nasty school lunches.

The Aradites wrote:PREACH

Hethens and Blasphemous blasphemers all around me!

Rateria

Read this in a Russian accent: Czekania went from thriving to powerhouse

Rateria, Venomringo

I'm surprised autocorrect isn't used ironically more often.

While Japan's culture has no doubt advanced beyond our own, some of these advancements are quite questionable.

Fascist Dred

Term Start passes 8-4.

Pevvania

Is Donald Trump actually black? 🤔

Pevvania, Hyderbourg, Fascist Dred, Libiceland

The States Of Balloon wrote:Is Donald Trump actually black? 🤔

That's what I was told.

The States Of Balloon wrote:Is Donald Trump actually black? 🤔

Yes

The States Of Balloon wrote:Is Donald Trump actually black? 🤔

Yes my son is black.

Pevvania

There's still time to submit flags, by the way. Just telegram this nation with a link to the image.

Pulceria wrote:Camper/Backpacker (Dads the scoutmaster) I love the Out-doors. I Just got back from a timberline meeting/overnight-er (I'm a staff for a up coming timberline)

Where abouts do you go backpacking? I'm partial to the High Uintas but I know a lot of people prefer going to places like Moab

Pevvania wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/nation=pevvania/detail=factbook/id=137128

Our platform and membership roster has been updated.

why no me

Pevvania, Rateria

Muh Roads wrote:why no me

Sorry hombre. Once I get back from my run I'll add you.

The healthcare bill rightly takes an axe to Medicaid, and should go further and privatise the whole program.

Miencraft, Fascist Dred

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