Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Well goodnight boys.

Lack There Of wrote:*snickers quietly to himself

I an dead. On this night I have died. We are all done, I'm dead. Go home everybody, we're done. *turns off light and leaves.*

*jumps out window onto a tree and sleeps*

Humpheria wrote:1. So far I know of three. Pev, you, and Einsiev.

2. I'm not going to put energy into writing the stipulations if the Board doesn't want to do it.

I'm running? Don't remember signing up for this but Okay then. I'm cool with that.

Uh-huh.....okay then.

Humpheria wrote:Didn't you found the DRP? You can just kind of take that again.

Einsiev wrote:No, I didn't.

Phew......got kinda scared. Who founded the DRP? I want to see how much three parties current policies line up.

I figured since we are expanding our private sector we need something to power all of this expansion. Libertatem Nuclear Power Plant. Please send workers there on behalf of your nations to fuel this expansion. Let's turn this region into a power trade hub. Powered by the Plant.

Humpheria wrote:I figured since we are expanding our private sector we need something to power all of this expansion. Libertatem Nuclear Power Plant. Please send workers there on behalf of your nations to fuel this expansion. Let's turn this region into a power trade hub. Powered by the Plant.

This......If it has the name Libertatem Power Plant. That would imply it is owned by the state right? Thus we are Publicizing the Energy industry. I like!

....Not what I intended, but ok? I wanted it to be known that it belonged to the region, not the state.

Sorry for the inactivity as of late y'all. Had a certainly crazy weekend.

The Time Alliance wrote:I'm running? Don't remember signing up for this but Okay then. I'm cool with that.

Well, you did kind of say way back when that you wanted to run for President.

Miencraft wrote:Well, you did kind of say way back when that you wanted to run for President.

That must've been a long time ago. But sure if I'm signed up to run anyways no point in not running.

Hello. I heard of this place along the grapevine.

Excellent! Welcome to Libertatem!

Good to be here. Thank you.

How do I get involved in this government? I am a political guy

First things first what are your views politically?

Trick Shot wrote:Good to be here. Thank you.

How do I get involved in this government? I am a political guy

You can be involved through discussion an if you're here for ten days, then you can become a citizen and run for office.

The Time Alliance wrote:First things first what are your views politically?

socially moderate-liberal

fiscally conservative

non interventionsit FP

I am a paulite libertarian

Well. You can be involved in the political discussions we have. Then after ten days or April 4 you may join a Political Party and run for office.

And if I were you I'd check out the Democratic - Republican Party.

The Time Alliance wrote:And if I were you I'd check out the Democratic - Republican Party.

I just posted my beliefs. are they in line with your party?

Welcome, [nation=short]Trick Shot[/nation]! I love the flag, by the way ;)

Trick Shot wrote:I just posted my beliefs. are they in line with your party?

The DRP is economically leftist.

Trick Shot wrote:I just posted my beliefs. are they in line with your party?

Pevvania wrote:Welcome, [nation=short]Trick Shot[/nation]! I love the flag, by the way ;)

The DRP is economically leftist.

MODERATE....

Well Left-Centrist.

Other then that they are.

Time, I'd like to ask you: what is your position on guns?

Pevvania wrote:Welcome, [nation=short]Trick Shot[/nation]! I love the flag, by the way ;)

thank u very much. u a fan?

I am torn between the LP and the objectivist libertarian thing

Trick Shot wrote:thank u very much. u a fan?

I'm a big fan! I love Clint Eastwood, as an actor and as a person.

Trick Shot wrote:I am torn between the LP and the objectivist libertarian thing

The Objectivist Libertarian Party is largely defunct right now, as its leader left it to join the Reaganist Libertarian Party. That party is led by me and strongly interventionist, so for you I'd recommend joining the LP.

Pevvania wrote:I'm a big fan! I love Clint Eastwood, as an actor and as a person.

The Objectivist Libertarian Party is largely defunct right now, as its leader left it to join the Reaganist Libertarian Party. That party is led by me and strongly interventionist, so for you I'd recommend joining the LP.

I like his western persona. I liked his controversial RNC speech. although I was like WTF when I hear his views on guns

I probably will

Trick Shot wrote:I like his western persona. I liked his controversial RNC speech. although I was like WTF when I hear his views on guns

I probably will

Yeah, he disappoints me in that regard. But he is very pragmatic, ya gotta give him credit for holding independent views.

Trick Shot wrote:I am torn between the LP and the objectivist libertarian thing

Here is the LP's platform if you're interested:

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=lack_there_of/detail=factbook/id=211577

Either way, glad to have another active nation around

Pevvania wrote:Yeah, he disappoints me in that regard. But he is very pragmatic, ya gotta give him credit for holding independent views.

he is okay. I am offended that he supported Locke getting TWO abortions years ago, but whatever.

Lack There Of wrote:Here is the LP's platform if you're interested:

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=lack_there_of/detail=factbook/id=211577

Either way, glad to have another active nation around

I will join later on

Humpheria wrote:I figured since we are expanding our private sector we need something to power all of this expansion. Libertatem Nuclear Power Plant. Please send workers there on behalf of your nations to fuel this expansion. Let's turn this region into a power trade hub. Powered by the Plant.

Ill send a worker soon.

Trick Shot wrote:I will join later on

No pressure or anything, just wanted to make sure you knew what you were gating into. So are you new to this, or just running a snazzy puppet?

Pevvania wrote:Time, I'd like to ask you: what is your position on guns?

As I stated here earlier.

Ain't nobody gonna touch me or my family's guns. My Gun Permit is the Second Amendment.

Trick Shot wrote:I am torn between the LP and the objectivist libertarian thing

Okay. So long as it's not the RLP.

The Time Alliance wrote:

Ain't nobody gonna touch me or my family's guns. My Gun Permit is the Second Amendment.

I believe this to be a fundamental flaw in the Anerican psyche. The second amendment does not give us the right to bear arms. The fact we are all born sovereign individuals gives us that right. To say anything else is to suggest that our rights are given by the government.

Lack There Of wrote:I believe this to be a fundamental flaw in the Anerican psyche. The second amendment does not give us the right to bear arms. The fact we are all born sovereign individuals gives us that right. To say anything else is to suggest that our rights are given by the government.

I'll quote the amendment. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

We are born with 2 rights. Right of Life AND Right of opinion

The rest are determined by our environment.

Lack There Of wrote:I believe this to be a fundamental flaw in the Anerican psyche. The second amendment does not give us the right to bear arms. The fact we are all born sovereign individuals gives us that right. To say anything else is to suggest that our rights are given by the government.

I agree, but natural rights sentiment is much stronger in America than it is in Britain. Here, we have no constitution, and the only rights we have (as determined by government) can easily be repealed by future parliaments.

The Time Alliance wrote:I'll quote the amendment. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

We are born with 2 rights. Right of Life AND Right of opinion

The rest are determined by our environment.

This is an awfully dangerous worldview. It is through this view that states have been able to expand their sphere of control over populations. The state does not determine which rights you maintain, the individual does.

Lack There Of wrote:This is an awfully dangerous worldview. It is through this view that states have been able to expand their sphere of control over populations. The state does not determine which rights you maintain, the individual does.

Then how is it they can sign a bill and the right is gone?

Pevvania wrote:I agree, but natural rights sentiment is much stronger in America than it is in Britain. Here, we have no constitution, and the only rights we have (as determined by government) can easily be repealed by future parliaments.

I've always been amazed the the English people have allowed this system to continue for so long. Perhaps you can explain why this has been perpetuated for so long.

The Time Alliance wrote:Then how is it they can sign a bill and the right is gone?

Because the people roll over and take it. The "rights" don't disappear only your opportunity to exercise these rights without fear of outside coercion.

So what your saying is everyone has infinite rights? When they are born?

The Time Alliance wrote:So what your saying is everyone has infinite rights? When they are born?

Anything else gives someone/something (other than a creator, which arguably gave you those rights) complete control over you by deciding what "rights" you may have

Lack There Of wrote:Anything else gives someone/something (other than a creator, which arguably gave you those rights) complete control over you by deciding what "rights" you may have

So where's the line drawn? You must have a line regarding how far these rights For as to protect the populace.

Lack There Of wrote:I've always been amazed the the English people have allowed this system to continue for so long. Perhaps you can explain why this has been perpetuated for so long.

Generally, Britain has been a leading neo-liberal nation since the 1980s, but a major problem is the power of government.

We lack the historical support of libertarianism that's deeply embedded in the US cultural psyche, so many of us hold a very apathetic attitude towards how the nation is governed. Many of those that are interested in politics are self-described pragmatists, and don't care how strong the state is as long as it "does the right things".

But there has been a call for constitutional reform in the past few decades, however the movement for it is very disjointed and reforms have not gone far.

The Time Alliance wrote:Then how is it they can sign a bill and the right is gone?

Because it holds an extraordinary amount of power. Your natural birth rights can never truly be taken away; they are inalienable.

The Time Alliance wrote:So where's the line drawn? You must have a line regarding how far these rights For as to protect the populace.

Being born into a sovereign, individual body, you naturally control that body, so you have the natural right to do whatever you want with it, as long as you're not harming the natural rights of others.

Pevvania wrote:Being born into a sovereign, individual body, you naturally control that body, so you have the natural right to do whatever you want with it, as long as you're not harming the natural rights of others.

But not harming others natural rights restricts YOUR natural rights.

The Time Alliance wrote:But not harming others natural rights restricts YOUR natural rights.

No, it doesn't. Natural rights are confined to your body and your choices. You do not have natural rights to the independent bodies of others, just your own, because yours is the only one that you control.

Pevvania wrote:No, it doesn't. Natural rights are confined to your body and your choices. You do not have natural rights to the independent bodies of others, just your own, because yours is the only one that you control.

^ this

Lack There Of wrote:No pressure or anything, just wanted to make sure you knew what you were gating into. So are you new to this, or just running a snazzy puppet?

**lights cigar**

**stare**

Maybe maybe not

Pevvania wrote:Generally, Britain has been a leading neo-liberal nation since the 1980s, but a major problem is the power of government.

We lack the historical support of libertarianism that's deeply embedded in the US cultural psyche, so many of us hold a very apathetic attitude towards how the nation is governed. Many of those that are interested in politics are self-described pragmatists, and don't care how strong the state is as long as it "does the right things".

But there has been a call for constitutional reform in the past few decades, however the movement for it is very disjointed and reforms have not gone far.

Thanks for the info. I see the strikingly similarities between this description and the trend of American voters

Pevvania wrote:No, it doesn't. Natural rights are confined to your body and your choices. You do not have natural rights to the independent bodies of others, just your own, because yours is the only one that you control.

Let's try this then. Westboro Baptist church. They picketed a funeral for a military member under the stance God hates the military. That soldiers family sued Westboro.

So who has the rights is Westbroro exercising rights to protest or are they infringing the family's rights?

If they are infringing the family's rights would the family them in turn be infringing Westboro's right to protest?

Lack There Of wrote:Thanks for the info. I see the strikingly similarities between this description and the trend of American voters

But you've still got a good 40% who are extremely passionate about continuing the Republic. In many ways it's quite remarkable that enthusiasm for the Constitution has gone on for this long amongst so many Americans. Education will be the key to restoring the principle of liberty in the United States.

The Time Alliance wrote:Let's try this then. Westboro Baptist church. They picketed a funeral for a military member under the stance God hates the military. That soldiers family sued Westboro.

So who has the rights is Westbroro exercising rights to protest or are they infringing the family's rights?

If they are infringing the family's rights would the family them in turn be infringing Westboro's right to protest?

Depends. Everyone has the right to non-violently protest, as long as the owner of the property they're protesting on permits it. The owner of the property on which the protest occurred (or perhaps the family, as they are "mixing their labour with the soil" in a way) has every right to forcibly evict the protesters from the property, as they homesteaded the property using their persons.

Pevvania wrote:But you've still got a good 40% who are extremely passionate about continuing the Republic. In many ways it's quite remarkable that enthusiasm for the Constitution has gone on for this long amongst so many Americans. Education will be the key to restoring the principle of liberty in the United States.

Just as long as that education doesn't come from our public education system.. lol

Pev your British right?

Which parties do you associate yourself with?

The Board Medal of Heroism:

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=humpheria/detail=factbook/id=235169

After losing the RLP primary for seat 3, I am announcing that I will be running for board seat one for the RLP.

We may primary again, but regardless, all three of you will be involved in the debate three hours from now.

oops, actually seat 5

agh this keyboard is horrible. seat 4

Is four your final choice?

If it is we may primary you and see about challengers, or we may just put both of you in the general and see where that takes us.

The Time Alliance wrote:Pev your British right?

Which parties do you associate yourself with?

In the UK, I'd call myself an independent. We have a Libertarian Party here, but it's minuscule to the point of irrelevance. I liked UKIP for a while, but a few of their policies put me off. The Conservatives are fairly moderate at the moment, but still significantly better than the other major parties. So I'll be voting for Dave next year.

And I'm not British, I'm Australian. I support the Australian Liberal Democratic Party.

There will be a primary for Seat Four.

Pevvania wrote:In the UK, I'd call myself an independent. We have a Libertarian Party here, but it's minuscule to the point of irrelevance. I liked UKIP for a while, but a few of their policies put me off. The Conservatives are fairly moderate at the moment, but still significantly better than the other major parties. So I'll be voting for Dave next year.

And I'm not British, I'm Australian. I support the Australian Liberal Democratic Party.

Oh. What territory in Australia? West Australia?

The Time Alliance wrote:Oh. What territory in Australia? West Australia?

I was born in Brisbane, but I've lived around.

Speaking of Australia, there is a company in Australia called Ancap that tests out car safety. Guess what their logo looks like?

http://www.qldstreetcar.com.au/blog/uploads/36/files/ANCAP_large_reize.jpg

Lol

As for my preferences of Australian Political Parties.

I like the Labour Parties but I more-so like the parties inside the Minor Party Alliance.

The Time Alliance wrote:As for my preferences of Australian Political Parties.

I like the Labour Parties but I more-so like the parties inside the Minor Party Alliance.

The Labour Party is pretty unpopular at the moment. But not as much as the Greens. They're absolutely reviled.

I don't know anything about foreign parties except that i support Rob Ford for Canana PM

Trick Shot wrote:I don't know anything about foreign parties except that i support Rob Ford for Canana PM

I literally go and look at EVERY ELECTION in world and choose which parties I support.

April's elections are in my factbook.

Pevvania wrote:The Labour Party is pretty unpopular at the moment. But not as much as the Greens. They're absolutely reviled.

I hate Green Politics.

The Time Alliance wrote:I literally go and look at EVERY ELECTION in world and choose which parties I support.

April's elections are in my factbook.

Wow

Trick Shot wrote:Wow

Dedicated to politics. My one life.

The Time Alliance wrote:Dedicated to politics. My one life.

I used to be heavily involved in US politics...

I state my presence

Lack There Of wrote:I state my presence

I state that if u don't have anything good to say, don't post

OOOOOOOHHHHHH! Toasted!

Trick Shot wrote:I state that if u don't have anything good to say, don't post

Well for the record, I am uncertain when the debate for candidate running for sear one is to be held so I thought I would put it out there that I am here

Lack There Of wrote:Well for the record, I am uncertain when the debate for candidate running for sear one is to be held so I thought I would put it out there that I am here

say "I am ready to debate"

Humpheria wrote:OOOOOOOHHHHHH! Toasted!

haha

I'd like to announce that I'm establishing a (for the moment, unofficial) Department of Foreign Affairs. Telegram me at this nation if you're interested in serving the region as a diplomat.

(Also telegram me if you want to join ACOP.)

Trick Shot wrote:I used to be heavily involved in US politics...

I'm involved worldwide.

Trick Shot wrote:I state that if u don't have anything good to say, don't post

Dang......Kill em'

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I'd like to announce that I'm establishing a (for the moment, unofficial) Department of Foreign Affairs. Telegram me at this nation if you're interested in serving the region as a diplomat.

(Also telegram me if you want to join ACOP.)

How much do your parties beliefs line up with mine

(Keep in mind I'm about to revise my parties economic platform. )

The first question for candidates for Seat One of the Board:

What is your stance on the War on Communism? What would you do, if elected, to influence the War?

This will be a Townhall, so anyone is welcome to ask a question for NCSA and Lack to answer.

The Time Alliance wrote:I'm involved worldwide.

Dang......Kill em'

How much do your parties beliefs line up with mine

(Keep in mind I'm about to revise my parties economic platform. )

kill who?

Please refrain form cluttering conversation during the debate. I am leaving now, so please feel free to ask the candidates questions.

Humpheria wrote:Please refrain form cluttering conversation during the debate. I am leaving now, so please feel free to ask the candidates questions.

its a public RMB and suppression is illegal...

Humpheria wrote:The first question for candidates for Seat One of the Board:

What is your stance on the War on Communism? What would you do, if elected, to influence the War?

As is well known, I am avidly against offensive raiding operations, especially when the basis is ideological differences. During my tenure as manager of State, I helped to bring several regions join the REATO organization, believing that this could be the answer to ending the war. It soon became apparent that this was not the case as internationally we garnered the reputation of imperialists and anti-communist (voluntary included).

I reflected on the offensive actions and the root of hostilities and concluded that our traditions of endless conflict clearly violated the N.A.P whose ideals I hold dear. When I first joined the region, over a year ago, I bought into the line that it was either them or us and we must defend our sovereignty by destroying theirs. Then we entered into the ill fated agreement with the UCR. It was here I came into contact with voluntary-leftists (with whom I disagree with on policy strongly) and realized that our conflict was fundamentally flawed. These were not the stalinists we believed we were fighting. We cannot be friends and attack communists at the same time.

When I left the cabinet it was due to my position differing from the presidents on the future of the war. As decreed in the LP platform, which I wrote with assistance from party members, I hold that the war should cease permanently and that REATO needs to be retooled as a purely defensive organization.

As seen by recent events, the war is not working. We are being slandered internationally as imperialists, losing long time allies, jeopardizing our relationship with the libertarian left, causing internal strife over the war efforts, and driving voluntary communist regions such as the UCR into the hands of aggression pacts such as the Internationale.

I would go as far as to say that if the LP's N.A.P. platform would have been adopted several months ago the region could have avoided the current situation. I stand to make sure the region is never put in this place again due to the actions of our regional government.

Lack of aggression, Lack of war, and Lack of instability is what I desire for this region.

Trick Shot wrote:its a public RMB and suppression is illegal...

He's just saying try to not post immensely so we can have a good debate and the candidates will be able to see questions with ease.

I don't have the ability to suppress anything. I'm only the Chairman. But, you sir. Don't know whether or not suppression is illegal. Your nation is 28 hours old, and you've been here for eight of those hours. We are trying to conduct a debate for a serious government positions, and in the last 8 hours you have posted 20 messages, I'm only asking that you don't clog up the RMB so we can conduct this business.

Lack there of,

wouldn't you agree that by retreating to a completely defensive position, that we would be severely limiting our capabilities to prevent communistic expansion if we were not completely proactive? Part of refounding or PPing a region is to completely prevent opposing forces from creating their platforms and using it as a tool to further their imperialistic or oppressive policies. This doesn't completely destroy the natives either, in fact I believe one or two regions that I have refounded I had allowed a few former members of said region to occupy it until it has the power to stand alone (eg conservative patriots). Under a more proactive military policy we have the ability to give the opportunity for natives to resettle their regions, whereas in a defensive stance all we are doing is trying to prevent forces from capturing it; which only has a certain success rate.

Anyone else like to join in?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Lack there of,

wouldn't you agree that by retreating to a completely defensive position, that we would be severely limiting our capabilities to prevent communistic expansion if we were not completely proactive? Part of refounding or PPing a region is to completely prevent opposing forces from creating their platforms and using it as a tool to further their imperialistic or oppressive policies. This doesn't completely destroy the natives either, in fact I believe one or two regions that I have refounded I had allowed a few former members of said region to occupy it until it has the power to stand alone (eg conservative patriots). Under a more proactive military policy we have the ability to give the opportunity for natives to resettle their regions, whereas in a defensive stance all we are doing is trying to prevent forces from capturing it; which only has a certain success rate.

i had this great response and then clicked on "issues" by mistake. it will be one moment to retype sorry for the wait

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Lack there of,

wouldn't you agree that by retreating to a completely defensive position, that we would be severely limiting our capabilities to prevent communistic expansion if we were not completely proactive? Part of refounding or PPing a region is to completely prevent opposing forces from creating their platforms and using it as a tool to further their imperialistic or oppressive policies. This doesn't completely destroy the natives either, in fact I believe one or two regions that I have refounded I had allowed a few former members of said region to occupy it until it has the power to stand alone (eg conservative patriots). Under a more proactive military policy we have the ability to give the opportunity for natives to resettle their regions, whereas in a defensive stance all we are doing is trying to prevent forces from capturing it; which only has a certain success rate.

I wouldn't consider refounding regions to be an offensive act as no group is being directly attacked. That being said I would not have the regional government endorse such actions. One of our biggest issues abroad is our perceived status of imperialist scoundrels, and having a laundry list of seemingly captured embassies would not help in this regard.

In regards to the expansion of communism across NS, the war isn't helping our cause. It is because of war actions committed by members of this region that the communist threat is expanding. We have pushed peaceful leftists such as the UCR and Juche Union away from diplomacy and peace and into the arms of aggressive forces such as the Internationale. Whether or not these actions were "legal" or "justified" is completely unrelated, the end results show that aggressive actions are not the answer to stopping leftist expansion.

I propose to that any actions taken to attempt and prevent the growth of aggressive communism be done openly and diplomatically. I would urge our Manager of state and other executives to do all in their power to regain communications and embassies with the UCR and Jouche Union in an attempt to show we are serious about voluntaryist unity.

If private groups unaffiliated with the region would wish to continue with offensive operations without official regional endorsement then it would not be the government's job to intervene with said actions.

After the war is permanently stopped, I would have no issue with authorizing retaliatory measures by the regional government if we or an ally were attacked, but I cannot condone an endless cycle of aggression.

Humpheria wrote:Anyone else like to join in?

I am actually going to have to run to work here in a second and will be unable to answer any further questions at this time, but if people have futher questions feel free to post and I will answer them as soon as i can.

The Time Alliance wrote:How much do your parties beliefs line up with mine

ACOP is implied to support free market capitalism, but this isn't set in stone. The main economic stance of the party is that corporations are so oppressive that they should not be subsidized or even treated as individuals, and that government involvement in the economy harms the market. Small businesses and local markets are the way to go, even if some of them are communal rather than capitalistic.

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