Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Basically.
Random thought and observation: I just love how many of these "democratic" socialist regions discriminate based on ideology. In reality it is democracy only for the party, which leads to all sorts of bureaucracy.
greetings
Hi?
Dred has Cted!
Really.... YES FINALLY I CAN STOP CHASING THEM DOWN!!!!!!!!!! *shoots fireworks*
WOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
So like your purpose in life is goe
oh.......... your right............I have no purpose now.......*sigh*:(
They may have the wrong idea when it comes to the definition of merit, but they're not wrong to restrict access to power to those with merit. Democracy should never be open to all, regardless of the quality of the individual.
I disagree. The more democracy we have, the more power the average individual has over matters affecting him. Indeed, there has to be some limits on what representatives of the people can do (e.g. not get overpaid or overfed) to hopefully stem some arrogance, and there also should be protectionism against "mob rule," and political cronyism with super PACS funding there favorite despots. To that end I endorse a demarchy, where rulers are chosen randomly by lots by an elected pool and can step down for whatever reason, or be withdrawn for whatever reason. I feel like that would get rid of a lot of the corruption, if it is at least made completely voluntary.
Very true.
is anyone else worried about the army of new people that just came here?
Yes.
I think their puppets of the UCR or some other communist region that like us.
*doesn't like us
Power should only be wielded by those with the moral and intellectual authority to do so. Democracy is not an absolute good. Neither is the "liberty" it supposedly protects, as liberty does not genuinely exist when those in power lack the virtue necessary to lead well. This was understood by the founders of the United States, who wisely restricted suffrage to those with an economic stake in the future of the country, landowners, and thus reduced the political power of the grasping masses. Similarly, the electoral college, the selection of senators by the state legislature (as opposed to the post-1913 direct election of senators), executive veto powers, and restrictions on access to citizenship were used to isolate the state from the whims of the masses via institutional structure and control of those who wield the vote. The scaling back of these safeguards by "populists" and the lower classes goes hand in hand with the rise of the welfare state and other forms of pandering. It is no coincidence that the assault on the remnants of these safeguards, such as the electoral college and the right of states to disenfranchise voters, is lead by the left.
Not everybody has the right to a voice in government.
Moral authority is utterly meaningless tripe, power naturally corrupts even the most moral. The state should be disregard morality and focus only what's practical - leave morality to the communities or (preferably) the individuals themselves.
As a minarchist, I would prefer localities to wield the power in their jurisdictions, and regulate as seen fit there, but for the state I see no reason to put in intelligent scientists or others if the only priorities are to maintain the courts, police, and defense. A truly merit based system is impossible, even in a pure republican system which could easily get taken over by special interests and such. Therefore, we should have enough democracy to keep away corruption, particularly at local levels, while having a more merit based system at the top where representatives have limited power and are 100% accountable to the people. So a representative democracy, but one with not necessarily less political freedoms, but rather focused on as I said, merit and anti-corruption.
Maybe the middle class should have the only say. The rich and poor are soo self serving.
I would be cool with that. :)
I'm not. If a political freedom should be granted, it should be universal. The problem is not democracy, but the system that it functions in is broken.
Yes, the poor vote them selves more money and the rich vote to bring down competition. Both the rich and the poor hurt the middle class by greed.
Both the rich and the poor have weakened America.
I was joking.
I need to go to sleep, I am talking out of my butt again.
Fun fact: Miencraft usually just lets his fingers run across the keyboard and make words. His brain usually has no say in what goes on.
Lol, I love you mien.(no homo)
I totally agree with you comrade!
Ouch..that word comrade..ouch....that communist greeting cuts my heart like a knife was stabbed into it.
I don't know why but I was monitoring the UCR and they have attracted some guy that only speaks Arabic. I just found that interesting.
Whats wrong comrade?
AYE...........THE PAIN THE PAIN......*wimpers* OWWWWWWWWWWWW
Comrade! It is time to spread communism to the working classes and give them the reigns to control their destinies!
Among capitalist circles I prefer to say "bromade" for some reason. Sup bromades
you made bro?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, no Fontes iuris Germanici antiqu you promised yourself not to go down that path again....You must fight the urge to..to...hand out leaflets and make propaganda posters.
Darn dred is back to look at the UCR to see.
Comrades we must make Pevvania our Eternal leader,workers unite!
Gah...come on man don't flush all those year of mental rehabilitation down the toilet. Argh... just find happy place *cries*
Are you kidding, comrade? Pevvania is nothing but a Bourgeois elitist, out only to oppress the working class of Libertatem!
I say we should form the Libertatem Revolutionary Workers' Council, and vote the RLP tyranny out of office. Workers of the world unite!
I was going to make that joke.
And that one.
It seems you people have your humor all figured out. Now if you'll excuse me, my people need me *disappears in a red, white, and blue puff of smoke*
I thought you were a dead serious Hallo Island there for a second
Power is what creates and maintains morality. As Durkheim wrote back in late 19th century, all social acts are moral, because all social acts involve an evaluation of boundaries and how much authority one has the right to exert over another. To its core, morality is about power. The state, which enforces the regulations of society and as a result is the preeminent moral force in any society, can no more "disregard morality" than a man can disregard his mortality, because morality is the center or essence of any state. Pretending to separate morality from the state simply means the state evades its moral responsibility. Everything the state, the center of society, does is by definition a moral act since it establishes how its citizens may relate to each other. A state is responsible for any act it allows one of its citizens to make unimpeded; it can't wash its hands of any immoral act committed by a private individual because it allowed it to happen.
This is why it is absurd to grant those with lax morals access to the levers of government. Doing so only allows for two possibilities; one, they will use that access to impose immorality upon society, or two, in the interest of "protecting" society from the people it foolishly granted power the state has to abandon the purpose for which it was made, to create moral laws that allow society to exist. The former is seen in the leftist social agendas that are destroying the west, and the latter is seen in the rise of laicism originating in the same. Both follow from granting the immoral a say in governance.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH
no Fontes iuris Germanici antiqu you r..no communist...capitalist u r......fight urge to get hammer and sickle tattooed on your arm ARRRGHT
Wahoo magical... 00
~~
U
Post self-deleted by The Amarican Empire.
But that would assume that the state is a moral or just force, of which it isn't, despite it having plenty of power. Wherever the state claims it has the "moral authority" or "moral responsibility" to do something, it does only injustices by violating the minority's rights. If you give it the power to build a giant nuclear bomb to destroy its enemies, it'll siphon your money to build a bomb to wipe out innocent populations and hurt the environment of which everyone benefits collectively. Whenever you give the state a "moral responsibility," it always does evil. Why? Because the state's premise is entirely unjustified, and the actions it takes are always coercive.
Therefore comes the libertarian argument for negative rights: because the state cannot be entrusted to serve the public without committing acts against property or liberty, then its only job would be to back out of morality entirely and instead be entrusted to instead enforce the fundamentals of society - life, liberty, and property, or the police, the courts, and the common defense.
I am not saying we should have people with no morals in government, but people whose morals will not be enforced upon others. I would say that men should be judged by their character and actions more than their morals, as a person can have a good moral foundation but constantly go against it.
I got a new flag what does everyone think of it?
NK is that way, amongst the radioactive wastelands of nothingness:
-------------->
A moral or just force? It would assume the former, though not necessarily the latter. A better way of putting it would be to say that everything the state does is morally imbued. The state serves a single purpose, to control and regulate. It establishes the rules. As a result, it is, and always must be, a moral agent, because it regulates social actions, and all social actions involve morality. What is morality but positive or negative statements, "I should do x" or "I should not do y", in relation to some other person? Everything the state does is a matter of putting force behind morality, because everything the state does is a matter of dictating what one should or should not do in relation to some other person.
As for justice, the state is perfectly capable of being unjust (which here, I define as a synonym of immoral), even though all of its acts are morally imbued. The state is perfectly capable of being immoral if its moral prescriptions for society are immoral. An unjust decree violates natural law and thus is immoral. The state is still trucking in morality even when it acts immorally.
Morality transcends the state, which only enforces morality. Some theorists like to use the term "natural rights" to describe this transcendent quality of morality. This transcendent morality which the state only enforces (or fails to enforce) is the origin of right. If the state uses coercion in accords with this morality, it behaves justly. The minority has no right to behave immorally (that would contradict the entire concept of both morality and right), and thus the state is perfectly just to suppress the immoral. It is only when the state fails to uphold morality that it behaves unjustly, regardless of the size of the population that it directs its force against.
Even you accept this absolute and transcendent morality as a fact. It's obvious by the way you exclude "life, liberty, and property" from the coercion you claim to oppose. As many anarchists and leftists have argued in the past, property is coercive. It exists, as a practical matter, only because men will do violence to anybody that disagrees with the concept. You own your things because the state has granted you the title to those things, and the police will coerce the rest of society into respecting that privilege. Yet this is not an immoral coercion, because you believe in the natural right of property; in other words, you believe there is an absolute and transcendent morality, and as a result certain forms of coercion to defend that morality are justified. Thus you both recognize the role of the state as a moral agent and recognize the existence of absolute morality.
This is an absurdity, though, and a prime example of why libertarianism is, with all due respect, a degenerate ideology no better than Marxism or liberalism. Inaction is a form of action. If a child is about to be struck by a train, and a passerby doesn't pull the child from the tracks, wouldn't you say the passerby is guilty of abandoning their duty to preserve the child's life? You relied on the traditional democratic argument of the majority versus the minority when arguing against state coercion, but the majority is the group most often sinned against by delinquent states. If the state allows people to behave immorally, it acts no differently than that passerby.
The state cannot "back out of morality". By leaving people the privilege to behave in a certain way when one has the power to prevent it, one is acting as a moral agent and condoning a specific form of morality. Power is always a moral agent.
It sounds like something he would say for sure. [joke]Not saying he's a Communist, but Stalin and him were never seen in a room together.[/joke] Let Hallo RLP dictatorship comments begin!
See, the main reason the state has absolutely nothing to do with morality is the fact that absolutely everyone has a different ethical code, so it would be impossible to lead an entire nation based on such a thing.
Moral prescriptions by definition cannot be immoral. To someone else's perspective, yes, they could be, but your entire argument seems to dissolve once one notices that everyone's going to think everything everyone else is doing is immoral. It's the reason we have "limits" on what the government can do here, so that people don't take their own ideas and push them onto the populace. Well, ideally, that shouldn't be happening, but you get the point.
Good morning, people.
Except that's precisely what you are doing when you accept things like property and personal rights, and that's exactly what you do when you allow people to take actions uninhibited. You haven't escaped the question of morality by hiding behind nonintervention, because the state that doesn't interfere does two things: 1) it effectively condones immorality by allowing what it has the power to prevent to progress unabated, and 2) it, by merit of its monopoly on force prevents some other moral actor from enforcing morality.
When the leftist rejects private property and rises in revolt against the bourgeoisie, what happens? The state rouses itself and crushes him. Yet, if as you say, "everyone has a different ethical code", it would be an injustice for the state to defend your property, because the leftist is simply acting in accords with his ethics. The state, through its actions, says "we accept the prevailing view of property rights and reject the one proposed by the leftist". And it uses violence and force to, in your words, "take their own ideas and push them onto the populace", killing all who disagree, like the leftist. It uses violence to promote one view over another.
Either your property rights are a fiction because there is no absolute ethical code all are bound to, and thus the state creates right through violence and violence alone, or rights are inherent and above opinion, a sacred law of the universe, in which case the state must act upon them or be guilty of allowing unjust acts to occur. If you accept the latter, then you accept my argument and recognize that the state is a moral agent.
Again, there is no such thing as a state that ignores morality. There are simply states that promote morality and states that promote or allow immorality.
See, I would like to be involved in these debates, but when it reaches over ten thousand paragraphs, I can't do it.
Watch it.
I'm shaking.
Post self-deleted by Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes.
I haven't been on in a few days. Sorry about that.
Yeah me too. What is this debate even about?
I also have some problems with Section V of the GMR Act. And by that I mean one problem: why does the commandant control the Reserve Corps? I feel like that's just silly. The Adjutant should be the direct commander of both branches and answer to the Commander. The Commandant should be a backup Commander only or someone to discuss high level tactics with. Given, it is just the denfense corps(which doesn't really matter for this game) but it's the principle of the matter, I think.
I could see the confusion. I should have used better wording. The commandant is the adviser to the Reserves and relays the orders from his highers. He is the one that contributes military decisions on behalf of his unit. He is also the one, that in the event of a raid on us, will be responsible for mobilizing and passing on orders to his troops. The Commander, and more specifically, Adjutant have direct command over both.
Alright I see now. Thanks for clearing that up for me. It looks real good otherwise, nice jerb.
jerb *snicker*
General poll question. Are you:
A. A Dorito lover
B. A monster
C. All of the above.
It is sad to see Juche Union has ordered the closure of our embassy there; they were a strategically significant ally, due in part to our mutual opposition of GGR.
The Department of Foreign Affairs will scout out a new gateway to the libertarian left. The authoritarian scourge will not succeed in dividing those who seek liberty.
Umm B. :(
Truth.
I will not be on NS from the 16th to the 18th. Please direct all Internal Affairs questions and concerns to my deputies Miencraft and Hallo Island. Thank you.
I'll probably be quite inactive until Thursday. Apologies for the inconvenience.
*pulls a Mien and slides into the President's office*
Enjoy your break, Pev.
Afternoon gentalmen
Good afternoon. I am proud to announce that today I partook in my annual bath.
ah.. that is why u smell like roses.
look what CE just posted
The Marxist-Leninists of Communal Earth
Seconds ago
You guys don't realize the importance of influence in this region. We have no founder available right now, so it is imperative that you endorse me or forced to leave. You can't argue I am being restrictive when Kanastan was planning a coup against me. Even before I used any delegate power, he wanted power in this region. You can't blame me for threatening them if they childishly refuse to do anything I request. All you have to do is press a button, how hard is that for you people?
I am so disappointed in you because you are disrespecting the founder because he explicitly said for me to look over the region and make it doesn't go into ruin.You see people complaining that this region is in ruin, but it is the people that are arrogantly resistant that are bringing this region into ruin. I don't need to warn you anymore. Next time it will be out for all of you.
Paranoid dictator anyone?
I really hope you meant "daily" or a the very least "weekly".
Do not ask me how I can do this, but I can confirm that he meant what he said.
Looks like Juche Union is closing their embassy with us.
hello everyone.
[quote=upper_domain;6321225]A moral or just force? It would assume the former, though not necessarily the latter. A better way of putting it would be to say that everything the state does is morally imbued. The state serves a single purpose, to control and regulate. It establishes the rules. As a result, it is, and always must be, a moral agent, because it regulates social actions, and all social actions involve morality. What is morality but positive or negative statements, "I should do x" or "I should not do y", in relation to some other person? Everything the state does is a matter of putting force behind morality, because everything the state does is a matter of dictating what one should or should not do in relation to some other person.
As for justice, the state is perfectly capable of being unjust (which here, I define as a synonym of immoral), even though all of its acts are morally imbued. The state is perfectly capable of being immoral if its moral prescriptions for society are immoral. An unjust decree violates natural law and thus is immoral. The state is still trucking in morality even when it acts immorally.
Morality transcends the state, which only enforces morality. Some theorists like to use the term "natural rights" to describe this transcendent quality of morality. This transcendent morality which the state only enforces (or fails to enforce) is the origin of right. If the state uses coercion in accords with this morality, it behaves justly. The minority has no right to behave immorally (that would contradict the entire concept of both morality and right), and thus the state is perfectly just to suppress the immoral. It is only when the state fails to uphold morality that it behaves unjustly, regardless of the size of the population that it directs its force against.
Even you accept this absolute and transcendent morality as a fact. It's obvious by the way you exclude "life, liberty, and property" from the coercion you claim to oppose. As many anarchists and leftists have argued in the past, property is coercive. It exists, as a practical matter, only because men will do violence to anybody that disagrees with the concept. You own your things because the state has granted you the title to those things, and the police will coerce the rest of society into respecting that privilege. Yet this is not an immoral coercion, because you believe in the natural right of property; in other words, you believe there is an absolute and transcendent morality, and as a result certain forms of coercion to defend that morality are justified. Thus you both recognize the role of the state as a moral agent and recognize the existence of absolute morality.[/quote]
First of all, a bit of an understanding: libertarians do not argue against coercion, but aggression. In my axiom, coercion is totally legitimate if it is in compensation of property damage or aggression against freedom. The reason I take such a basic form of morality is because it is both universal and pragmatic, a state requires nothing more to function, and it gives the most freedoms to their citizens without having to turn to positive rights. I own the things I do, not because of the state because beyond serving the only role accredited to it, it does not claim ownership over what I had obtained justly through my own efforts. At the very least I can tolerate a sales tax, but otherwise putting restrictions in place over what I can buy, or wear, or whatever, is frankly none of the states business, especially if I used the fruits (money) of my labor (work) to achieve the property. I guess it could be seen in a role of morality, but I see it moreso of a role of compensation.
If you want more in depth view, Id recommend looking at some of Augarundus posts from this thread: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=294556&p=20043889&sid=34ad6ed1b4a6d76fdc2a618dde692067#p20043889
[quote]This is an absurdity, though, and a prime example of why libertarianism is, with all due respect, a degenerate ideology no better than Marxism or liberalism.[/quote]
You realize that libertarianism IS a form of liberalism, as it is the direct descendent of classical liberalism.
[quote=upper_domain;6321225]Inaction is a form of action.[/quote]
No it isnt. That is a contradiction. Inaction is inaction. Its meaningless.
[quote=upper_domain;6321225]If a child is about to be struck by a train, and a passerby doesn't pull the child from the tracks, wouldn't you say the passerby is guilty of abandoning their duty to preserve the child's life?[/quote]
No.
[quote=upper_domain;6321225]You relied on the traditional democratic argument of the majority versus the minority when arguing against state coercion, but the majority is the group most often sinned against by delinquent states. If the state allows people to behave immorally, it acts no differently than that passerby.[/quote]
The majority is made up of minorities, or individuals. The majority, is a non-entity, and has no rights, beyond respecting the rights of minorities. Not all minorities are willing to serve a majority without the majority negatively affecting minorities in any way (by limiting their freedoms). However, even in a society as large and complex as the one we live in today, democracy at least gives these individuals a voice, however minute. As much as I dislike mob rule, for the life of me I would rather prefer it than living under a Romanesque type oligarchic theocracy!
[quote=upper_domain;6321225]The state cannot "back out of morality". By leaving people the privilege to behave in a certain way when one has the power to prevent it; one is acting as a moral agent and condoning a specific form of morality. Power is always a moral agent.[/quote]
But when minoritys morality does not affect anyone else but themselves it is their freedom and responsibility alone to keep, and not the states to enforce without explicit permission beforehand (excluding the philosophical woo that is the social contract). If you believe that sexual promiscuity leads to immorality and disease, then even if it does unless these sexual diseases transmit through the air, it is really anyones responsibility other than the people who knew the risks but consented otherwise? So tell me why you must stick your nose in somebody elses business?[/quote]
hello anyone online?
no
Dang I always come when no one is around?
no
Whats up‽
this place feels so empty. :(
the sky
well.........I'm gonna watch Swamp People now. Bye.
yay
The anthem of Hallo Island
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk69e1Vcmvg&hd=1
Post self-deleted by Ipian.
Thank you, Comrade Amarican. This anthem brings a tear to my eye, everytime.
The cries of the oppressed shall never be suppressed!
Yes, comrade. Bring forth the equality!
The Order of the Hand will rule!
This makes me happy.
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.. THE WORD COMRADE IT STINGS!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Sxv-sUYtM&hd=1
Yes, comrade! A redistribution of wealth and power is necessary for the advancement of the working class.
In the context of this region, the RLP must relinquish all power to the people of Libertatem, the disadvantaged masses whom oppose the elitist RLP monstrosity, yet are too frightened to speak their own mind.
I urge the people of Libertatem to, in a glorious, revolutionary fervor, boot the RLP from power in the next election cycle, in favor of our comrades in the Communist Party.
May the Workers Unite!
See, I know your kidding, but you seem really passionate about that and that scares me.
The LENIN ACT
-Power is Redistributed to a the Vanguard Party;The RLP.
-All property is held in common and administered by the RLP
-the Legislative branch is the citizens united to form the Congress of the Supreme Soviet
:P
lol
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.