Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Muh Roads wrote:Right, because living life as unrestricted as possible is totally insane.

Yes, you're finally getting it.

Ganzeland wrote:Yes, you're finally getting it.

...Perhaps i was feeding the troll.

Muh Roads wrote:...Perhaps i was feeding the troll.

Well unless your feeding your president over there I don't think so.

Ganzeland wrote:Well unless your feeding your president over there I don't think so.

Do you really have nothing better to do than insult the elected leader of our region?

[U]OPERATION SOUTH WOODS[/U]

Talk to Blahbania for info on a raid that he's leading. To be organised ASAP. Telegram Blahb for permission to join up. Trusted nations only.

is anybody on here a member of YAL.

Post self-deleted by Muh Roads.

Estior wrote:Do you really have nothing better to do than insult the elected leader of our region?

When he runs a hate war on other peoples ideologies then yes.

Ganzeland wrote:When he runs a hate war on other peoples ideologies then yes.

Gamzeland, know one is attacking your ideology?

The United Regions wrote:is anybody on here a member of YAL.

I've liked their Facebook page, if that counts for anything. ^—^

Ganzeland wrote:When he runs a hate war on other peoples ideologies then yes.

If that's how you perceive us, then you're truly ignorant of the purpose, culture and history of Libertatem.

[quote]If that's how you perceive us, then you're truly ignorant of the purpose, culture and history of Libertatem.[/quote]

I read it personally that you were overly against leftist governments and even say your in a 'war with communism'. I am simply defending communism against those who hate it for no proper reason.

Ganzeland wrote:

I read it personally that you were overly against leftist governments and even say your in a 'war with communism'. I am simply defending communism against those who hate it for no proper reason.

Then you ought to defend it.

So tell us, why is it so superior?

Miencraft wrote:Then you ought to defend it.

So tell us, why is it so superior?

I didn't say it was superior, I'm just saying it doesn't deserve to be stamped out, so tell us, oh mighty one, why is capitalism so good that communism can't exist in the same place as it?

Ganzeland wrote:I didn't say it was superior, I'm just saying it doesn't deserve to be stamped out, so tell us, oh mighty one, why is capitalism so good that communism can't exist in the same place as it?

You have been asked to defend a point, I will defend mine when you have finished your defense.

Miencraft wrote:You have been asked to defend a point, I will defend mine when you have finished your defense.

You're asking me to do something completely irrelevant from the previous discussion. We're not discussing which system is better. We're discussing why you think communists don't deserve to live in your region.

Ganzeland wrote:You're asking me to do something completely irrelevant from the previous discussion. We're not discussing which system is better. We're discussing why you think communists don't deserve to live in your region.

Hey buddy, "We're a historically libertarian, anti-communist region, but we nevertheless accept anyone of all ideologies." It's in the RMB.

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Ganzeland wrote:You're asking me to do something completely irrelevant from the previous discussion. We're not discussing which system is better. We're discussing why you think communists don't deserve to live in your region.

Well, you did say:

"I am simply defending communism".

And I am simply holding you to your word.

Also, that WFE.

I think you misinterpreted me and I look past the sunshine mask. It states clearly in your president's fact book that "Any radically leftist nations will be summarily ejected for safety and security concerns." Explain to me that.

*Founder's factbook

Ganzeland wrote:I read it personally that you were overly against leftist governments and even say your in a 'war with communism'. I am simply defending communism against those who hate it for no proper reason.

So basically you know nothing about us.

Ganzeland wrote:I didn't say it was superior, I'm just saying it doesn't deserve to be stamped out, so tell us, oh mighty one, why is capitalism so good that communism can't exist in the same place as it?

That's a nice tu quo que there. It does deserve to be stamped out because slavery isn't a very pleasant thing.

We embrace capitalism because it is the only rational economic system. It fosters creativity, ambition and individualism. It enables the poor man to better himself, the artist to market his skills, the rich man to spread his wealth and help others. It is an economic system that has frequently been abused throughout history by the corruptive influence of the government, a challenge that we must remedy in the 21st Century. But even so, capitalism frequently shows itself to be ever-resilient, ever-exciting and just as revolutionary as it was when the first free markets appeared. We embrace capitalism because we embrace freedom and exceptionalism.

Ganzeland wrote:I think you misinterpreted me and I look past the sunshine mask. It states clearly in your president's fact book that "Any radically leftist nations will be summarily ejected for safety and security concerns." Explain to me that.

This is from a year-old speech and would only apply to major security threats, but I'll see that no one is persecuted for their ideology as long as I'm in office.

And if you don't believe me, then ask Vardakia, our resident communist.

If you want the direct quote here it is.

"This all in the name of a free people trying to pursue a free market. All radically leftist nations will be ejected and banned to insure the security and stability of the region."

Pevvania wrote:So basically you know nothing about us.

That's a nice tu quo que there. It does deserve to be stamped out because slavery isn't a very pleasant thing.

We embrace capitalism because it is the only rational economic system. It fosters creativity, ambition and individualism. It enables the poor man to better himself, the artist to market his skills, the rich man to spread his wealth and help others. It is an economic system that has frequently been abused throughout history by the corruptive influence of the government, a challenge that we must remedy in the 21st Century. But even so, capitalism frequently shows itself to be ever-resilient, ever-exciting and just as revolutionary as it was when the first free markets appeared. We embrace capitalism because we embrace freedom and exceptionalism.

Amen.

Pevvania wrote:This is from a year-old speech and would only apply to major security threats, but I'll see that no one is persecuted for their ideology as long as I'm in office.

And if you don't believe me, then ask Vardakia, our resident communist.

Hmm... Ok I trust you on that but communism isn't slavery. It's just an economic system. Capitalists are just as 'enslaved' as any communist.

In fact we're slaves to the money, we all are. We all want it, it wants us, and we are fighting other how it should flow into the peoples hands.

Communism doesn't mean totalitarianism, corrupt officials make that choice. So we can all have dictator, communist or capitalist.

Capitalism/Communism. A two sided coin of death. Poetic.

The United Regions wrote:is anybody on here a member of YAL.

How about you

Lack There Of wrote:How about you

I am a paid member, although I am not in a chapter yet, I am a high school student so I am trying to get one started at my school, however I am going to a State Convention in NY with speakers like Ron Paul, ect., ect., for only 10 dollars.

Post self-deleted by Blahbania.

The United Regions wrote:I am a paid member, although I am not in a chapter yet, I am a high school student so I am trying to get one started at my school, however I am going to a State Convention in NY with speakers like Ron Paul, ect., ect., for only 10 dollars.

Sweet deal, I'm a hs senior this year, so I'm not on the college scene. Where I'm going next year I fully intended on getting involved

Blahbania wrote:Why haven't we banjected the troll known as Ganzelstan.

We don't do that here

Ganzeland wrote:In fact we're slaves to the money, we all are. We all want it, it wants us, and we are fighting other how it should flow into the peoples hands.

Communism doesn't mean totalitarianism, corrupt officials make that choice. So we can all have dictator, communist or capitalist.

You know, i could have brought up some excellent points against this argument.. but i think i will ignore you from now on. Up until now you have needlessly trolled the region and i have very little respect for you, maybe there will be a time when we can have a logical debate as to why i think communism is a horrible ideology.. but that time is not now. Luckily for you, there are plenty of other people here willing to give you the time of day.

While many here might not agree, it appears to me that there is a practical use for communism in a capitalistic free market, assuming it occurs fairly uncommonly at the local level. On a small scale, communes might be able to generate goods more efficiently than some local forms of capitalism. (It kind of falls apart at the large scale, as we here all know.)

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:While many here might not agree, it appears to me that there is a practical use for communism in a capitalistic free market, assuming it occurs fairly uncommonly at the local level. On a small scale, communes might be able to generate goods more efficiently than some local forms of capitalism. (It kind of falls apart at the large scale, as we here all know.)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here? Applying communism in a capitalist free market would work how?

Muh Roads wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you mean here? Applying communism in a capitalist free market would work how?

I believe he means "Communist-style" collectives inside a regular state. If local communities (say up to small town sized) decided to collectivise and work together on, say, an agricultural project none of them could take on alone (or less efficiently on their own), he is arguing that working together by pooling resources and distributing the profits equitably would be more effective than having one person employing all the other people a lá capitalism.

Amirite, USCILibertatem?

Ganzeland wrote:If you want the direct quote here it is.

"This all in the name of a free people trying to pursue a free market. All radically leftist nations will be ejected and banned to insure the security and stability of the region."

Look at my flag, now back at the quote, now back at the flag, now back at the quote, now focus on the flag one last time.

Got it yet?

NB; Not communist, only a proponent of certain socialist ideals. Day before yesterday I had fun suggesting why Socialized Healthcare might be a good idea in the US, the other day I had a debate about anarchy. 'Twas a fun debate. I like to think I keep the people here thinking a little about their views :3 It's easy for your views to become stale if left unchallenged for long enough :P

Ganzeland wrote:In fact we're slaves to the money, we all are. We all want it, it wants us, and we are fighting other how it should flow into the peoples hands.

Communism doesn't mean totalitarianism, corrupt officials make that choice. So we can all have dictator, communist or capitalist.

Money is merely a means to improving one's quality of life. Real wealth is the things that aid us in living our day-to-day existence: cars, computers, food, machinery, furniture, clothing, houses, clocks, beds, toys. We pursue money because we pursue a better quality of life, as does any individual in any economic system.

Communism is stateless, moneyless and classless, so has never existed on a large scale. Initially it must brought about by mass expropriation of property and wealth then 'equally' redistributed. Maybe it can be democratic at first. But there's no effective way for hundreds of people to formulate an economic plan that they all agree on, so it would be full of gaps and riddled with compromises. This would strengthen the call for a single planner or a small group of unelected planners. These planners would effectively be dictators, because, as in the words of Hilaire Belloc, "Control of the production of wealth is control of human life itself." Everyone would be at the complete mercy of the planners, who would assign all individuals to occupations that they'd probably work in for life. To maintain control, extensive propaganda, police and surveillance states would have to be set up. Dissenters would be killed.

So communism is inevitably totalitarian.

Muh Roads wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you mean here? Applying communism in a capitalist free market would work how?

He means that the establishment of voluntary communes in small areas would be beneficial in some cases. Nevertheless it is a practice that should not be prohibited in a free market.

Pevvania wrote:He means that the establishment of voluntary communes in small areas would be beneficial in some cases. Nevertheless it is a practice that should not be prohibited in a free market.

Not very free if you're prohibiting things is it? :P

Surely people should be allowed to organize themselves as they see fit in a free market?

If not necessarily in a free market, then in a democratic, non authoritarian country, surely?

Pevvania wrote:Money is merely a means to improving one's quality of life. Real wealth is the things that aid us in living our day-to-day existence: cars, computers, food, machinery, furniture, clothing, houses, clocks, beds, toys. We pursue money because we pursue a better quality of life, as does any individual in any economic system.

Communism is stateless, moneyless and classless, so has never existed on a large scale. Initially it must brought about by mass expropriation of property and wealth then 'equally' redistributed. Maybe it can be democratic at first. But there's no effective way for hundreds of people to formulate an economic plan that they all agree on, so it would be full of gaps and riddled with compromises. This would strengthen the call for a single planner or a small group of unelected planners. These planners would effectively be dictators, because, as in the words of Hilaire Belloc, "Control of the production of wealth is control of human life itself." Everyone would be at the complete mercy of the planners, who would assign all individuals to occupations that they'd probably work in for life. To maintain control, extensive propaganda, police and surveillance states would have to be set up. Dissenters would be killed.

So communism is inevitably totalitarian.

In real life, yes, agreed.

In a hypothetical utopia where gradually, over the period of several generations and lots of educational brainwashing, a country could become communist without totalitarian control. However, it would require almost the entire population to agree that communism was great and the associated educational brainwashing (not, by definition an element of totalitarianism - it happens in most western democracies today) would take several generations to "convert" the entire population to communism.

But that's a hypothetical utopia.

Question to the region; what is your opinion of nationalism and its baby brother fervent patriotism?

Pax Osca wrote:In real life, yes, agreed.

In a hypothetical utopia where gradually, over the period of several generations and lots of educational brainwashing, a country could become communist without totalitarian control. However, it would require almost the entire population to agree that communism was great and the associated educational brainwashing (not, by definition an element of totalitarianism - it happens in most western democracies today) would take several generations to "convert" the entire population to communism.

But that's a hypothetical utopia.

I don't believe that such a scenario would be possible to sustain, due to the inherent human drive for individual achievement and progress. Individualism is embedded into the human psyche, and can never be extinguished from the soul unless every person was fitted with cyborgenic enhancements that blocks individualism and fosters conformity.

Pax Osca wrote:Not very free if you're prohibiting things is it? :P

Surely people should be allowed to organize themselves as they see fit in a free market?

If not necessarily in a free market, then in a democratic, non authoritarian country, surely?

I said that it should not be prohibited, as long as it's voluntary.

Quite right, Pev and Pax. And the reason that these communes shouldn't be any larger than local scale is that the bigger they are, the less likely it is voluntary (or the more likely that there will be people who don't do their share).

Still, in a perfect free-market world, there would probably be a communist community for every two or three capitalist ones for maximum output. That's significantly more than our present society would tolerate.

Pevvania wrote:I don't believe that such a scenario would be possible to sustain, due to the inherent human drive for individual achievement and progress. Individualism is embedded into the human psyche, and can never be extinguished from the soul unless every person was fitted with cyborgenic enhancements that blocks individualism and fosters conformity.

I agree that it's unlikely. But hey, a bitter Austrian ex-private managed to convince millions of Germans to join the SS and hate the jews through education brainwashing.

(NB; I took the example of joining the SS as it was a voluntary act for those that REALLY believed in Nazism, not something you'd be coerced or forced into by fear.)

Pevvania wrote:I said that it should not be prohibited, as long as it's voluntary.

Whoops! Major apologies X) Somehow managed to derp on my reading... *hangs head in shame*

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Quite right, Pev and Pax. And the reason that these communes shouldn't be any larger than local scale is that the bigger they are, the less likely it is voluntary (or the more likely that there will be people who don't do their share).

Still, in a perfect free-market world, there would probably be a communist community for every two or three capitalist ones for maximum output. That's significantly more than our present society would tolerate.

Wouldn't communist countries mess up free markets by having large tariffs on imported goods? After all, how would a moneyless society trade effectively with capitalist countries? Acquiring foreign capital is essential to trade, and a utopian communist society has no liquid capital at all. (Which is, if I understand correctly, the reason that early communist nations were waiting for a global communist revolution. The early USSR focused on creating "Socialism in One Country", in the hopes that the rest of the world would rise up and have their own Bolshevik revolutions - which was a genuine possibility in 1930s France, Germany, and to a lesser extent Britain).

Pax Osca wrote:Wouldn't communist countries mess up free markets by having large tariffs on imported goods? After all, how would a moneyless society trade effectively with capitalist countries? Acquiring foreign capital is essential to trade, and a utopian communist society has no liquid capital at all. (Which is, if I understand correctly, the reason that early communist nations were waiting for a global communist revolution. The early USSR focused on creating "Socialism in One Country", in the hopes that the rest of the world would rise up and have their own Bolshevik revolutions - which was a genuine possibility in 1930s France, Germany, and to a lesser extent Britain).

The obvious solution would be to ensure no 'communist countries' exist. That's an oxymoron anyway, by both definitions; idealistic communism is supposed to be stateless and practical communism can't function at the state level.

Socialism is incompatible with capitalism due to its reactionary and 'progressive' nature; especially state socialism, which is the ideology this region stands firmly against. It works on the assumption that capitalism must be scrapped for it to succeed, which is not only a sophomoric assertion on the part of whomever devised it, but also a claim greatly unsupported by history and precedent, if not untested.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:[B]The obvious solution would be to ensure no 'communist countries' exist[/B].

You've confused me...

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:

Still, in a perfect free-market world, there would probably be a communist community for every two or three capitalist ones for maximum output. That's significantly more than our present society would tolerate.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:The obvious solution would be to ensure no 'communist countries' exist. That's an oxymoron anyway, by both definitions; idealistic communism is supposed to be stateless and practical communism can't function at the state level.

Socialism is incompatible with capitalism due to its reactionary and 'progressive' nature; especially state socialism, which is the ideology this region stands firmly against. It works on the assumption that capitalism must be scrapped for it to succeed, which is not only a sophomoric assertion on the part of whomever devised it, but also a claim greatly unsupported by history and precedent, if not untested.

Agreed in part. Communism is incompatible with capitalism, but I'd argue certain aspects of socialism aren't. Socialized healthcare, state funded schools and education, roads, etc...

I need at least five nations to enlist for Operation South Woods. Talk to Muh Roads about it.

Please telegram me if you want to participate in Operation South Woods and i will get back to you ASAP.

I just finished breaking bad... How is there still a drug war?

I want to spend a little time talking about The Impact Federation.

It was a region founded in the name of minarchism and dedicated to fighting the socialist menace. So naturally it aligned itself with Libertatem, later becoming a key part of our ill-fated Empire. The nations of the region supported Libertatem's military presence of the region and the War on Communism wholeheartedly. But when the founder ceased to exist, a certain agitator by the name of Muldaria decided that he was now in charge of the region, and that Libertatem should leave. While we decided to keep them in the Empire, we withdrew all troops. After that, the region became embroiled in conflict. It was continually subjected to attacks by the Black Riders, so I led a small strike force to change back the WFE and restore native control. After we left once more, it was attacked again, so Libertatem troops embarked on an occupation with the goal of locking down the region for its own safety.

This was vigorously opposed by Muldaria, despite the fact that the other natives supported it. Muldaria decided to use the FRA to force us out so they could occupy the region instead. Muldaria was expecting to be made the new leader by his buddies, but they prohibited this. He asked for Libertatem's help, but we refused. Other natives eventually retook the region and forced the FRA out. Slowly it bled to death, as inactive nations ceased to exist and moved away. I retook the region the other day to dedicate it as a monument to what it once stood for.

It transpired that this 'Muldaria' character was a Communist agent from Slavia, a region long hostile towards us, that was planted in the region as a sleeper agent with the intent of taking the Delegacy, forcing out Libertatem and destroying the region. Not only did that fail, but now TIF is once again in our control.

Viva la revolucion! Viva capitalismo! Viva Libertatem!

Lack There Of wrote:I just finished breaking bad... How is there still a drug war?

Indeed, it's an exercise in futility that's wasted billions and caused countless deaths. On paper I'd like to see the decriminalisation of drugs... although I don't know how that'd effect day-to-day life. Perhaps forms of recreation once confined to inner-city neighbourhoods and low-income districts might spread across urban areas and into schools and hospitals. Perhaps not. Perhaps drug use will decline. As a libertarian, it's important not to rely on slippery-slope arguments and to recognise that if somebody really wants to do something, they'll do it, regardless of the law. But incentives are something to keep in mind of.

Pax Osca wrote:You've confused me...

Agreed in part. Communism is incompatible with capitalism, but I'd argue certain aspects of socialism aren't. Socialized healthcare, state funded schools and education, roads, etc...

I stress communist communities; countries are much larger than communities.

We need a few more nations who are willing take part in operation south woods.. please TG me!!

Pevvania wrote:Indeed, it's an exercise in futility that's wasted billions and caused countless deaths. On paper I'd like to see the decriminalisation of drugs... although I don't know how that'd effect day-to-day life. Perhaps forms of recreation once confined to inner-city neighbourhoods and low-income districts might spread across urban areas and into schools and hospitals. Perhaps not. Perhaps drug use will decline. As a libertarian, it's important not to rely on slippery-slope arguments and to recognise that if somebody really wants to do something, they'll do it, regardless of the law. But incentives are something to keep in mind of.

Portugal's gone and decriminalized the possession and consumption - but not sale or distribution - of most drugs, and although that did help to persuade me to try weed a few times (its not so bad if what you're doing isn't illegal, so I rationalized), I'm hardly going to start taking crack cocaine and heroin because of it.

Some "softer" drugs (Weed, Magic Mushrooms, maaaybe LSD, for example) people will inevitably experiment with when legalization occurs. Hard drugs are likely to remain the area of those who have had hard times and/or made big mistakes in their lives.

As long as people are informed and knowledgeable about what they're about to take, there's very little risk to legalizing even pretty hard stuff. The general "Republican"/Conservative America argument of "you try weed once and you're a druggie forever" is provably absurd. It's something fun to do with friends, but about as addictive as coffee and only really a threat to relationships if you're using as an escape from reality on a regular basis - same goes for alcohol, really (except that alcohol can be genuinely addictive, and the withdrawal from an addiction can be deadly).

Pevvania wrote:Indeed, it's an exercise in futility that's wasted billions and caused countless deaths. On paper I'd like to see the decriminalisation of drugs... although I don't know how that'd effect day-to-day life. Perhaps forms of recreation once confined to inner-city neighbourhoods and low-income districts might spread across urban areas and into schools and hospitals. Perhaps not. Perhaps drug use will decline. As a libertarian, it's important not to rely on slippery-slope arguments and to recognise that if somebody really wants to do something, they'll do it, regardless of the law. But incentives are something to keep in mind of.

What I meant to mention, is that it's actually decreased much of the crime surrounding the sale and distribution of drugs (stabbings, gang violence, etc). People are no longer arrested for possession, but (for the hard stuff) can get sent to rehab.

It's a sensible halfway step, IMO.

Most of the drugs that aren't highly addictive are only dangers if you start doing them on your own to escape.

Pax Osca wrote:Portugal's gone and decriminalized the possession and consumption - but not sale or distribution - of most drugs, and although that did help to persuade me to try weed a few times (its not so bad if what you're doing isn't illegal, so I rationalized), I'm hardly going to start taking crack cocaine and heroin because of it.

Some "softer" drugs (Weed, Magic Mushrooms, maaaybe LSD, for example) people will inevitably experiment with when legalization occurs. Hard drugs are likely to remain the area of those who have had hard times and/or made big mistakes in their lives.

As long as people are informed and knowledgeable about what they're about to take, there's very little risk to legalizing even pretty hard stuff. The general "Republican"/Conservative America argument of "you try weed once and you're a druggie forever" is provably absurd. It's something fun to do with friends, but about as addictive as coffee and only really a threat to relationships if you're using as an escape from reality on a regular basis - same goes for alcohol, really (except that alcohol can be genuinely addictive, and the withdrawal from an addiction can be deadly).

I should've asked you about that sooner, I forgot that you lived there :P I've heard it's worked really well. Apparently drug use rates have decreased and the distribution of free needles has cut the HIV infection rate in half.

While the inner Catholic in me has fostered a moral aversion to all drugs, weed is not very harmful at all and should be fully legalised. And at the end of the day, if somebody wants to damage themselves they have the right to do so.

Speaking of Portugal, I might be going there next Summer. There or Spain, probably.

I'm all for legalizing drugs. Just don't ask me to try any.

I'm fine with allowing people to put whatever they want into their bodies, just as long as they stay away from me and don't ask me to do the same. Besides, stoners become surprisingly good engineers when you give them weed, but nothing to smoke it out of.

I support legalizing drugs. I don't think it's the governments business.

Pevvania wrote:I should've asked you about that sooner, I forgot that you lived there :P I've heard it's worked really well. Apparently drug use rates have decreased and the distribution of free needles has cut the HIV infection rate in half.

While the inner Catholic in me has fostered a moral aversion to all drugs, weed is not very harmful at all and should be fully legalised. And at the end of the day, if somebody wants to damage themselves they have the right to do so.

Speaking of Portugal, I might be going there next Summer. There or Spain, probably.

BOO! SPAIN!

Just kidding :P But some infographic somewhere I once read declared Portugal to be one of the most friendly places for foreigners to go. I can almost guarantee more people will speak enough English to communicate here than in Spain. The Spanish are rich enough and big enough to dub everything on TV or produce their own. Over here we only have subtitles for stuff that goes on TV, so most of the population ends up learning bits and bobs just from watching the TV (or in the younger generations, from using the internet or playing online games). Some of my friends have accents so good that they sound almost identical to British or American English native speakers 0.o (American tends to be more common... British the more prized, amusingly XD ).

Anyway, yeah, if the program is backed up by some relatively good educational programs even from quite young. I don't think I was ever given a "IF SOMEBODY GIVES YOU DRUGS, YOU MUST SAYZ NOEZ!" speech in my primary/middle school education here (did high school elsewhere). They gave you the facts and discouraged you. As it is still a catholic country most people are brought up to be somewhat opposed to drugs from parental influences. That said, as people become teenagers they tend to relax their morals.... sometimes it's just the crowd they fall in with.

Mallaska wrote:I'm fine with allowing people to put whatever they want into their bodies, just as long as they stay away from me and don't ask me to do the same. Besides, stoners become surprisingly good engineers when you give them weed, but nothing to smoke it out of.

An old pen and some tinfoil can attest to that. As can a plastic bottle plus tinfoil. Tinfoil is incredibly diverse.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the plastic from the pen melted a little and released extra fumes that really weren't supposed to be there. Ah well. Worth it to see one of my friends ROFLing for about 5 minutes straight :3 XD

Legalize drugs. If the government wants to cry about it they should just tax it and quit being cry babies

Legalize, but then don't permit the government to complain about stoners.

Here's a question for y'all: who's your favourite contemporary economist? For me it's gotta be Tom Woods. Love that guy.

Mallaska wrote:I'm fine with allowing people to put whatever they want into their bodies, just as long as they stay away from me and don't ask me to do the same. Besides, stoners become surprisingly good engineers when you give them weed, but nothing to smoke it out of.

I made a water pipe out of a medium taco bell cup. True story.

Anyways, im all for legalizing drugs.. but not so much for the taxation.

I wish I could go to Taco Bell more often :P

The Libertatem army wants you!

Please TG me now to take part in Operation South Woods!

Why is it always me who authors and passes legislation? :I

No one else wants laws pev haha ;) I jest of course.

Muh Roads wrote:No one else wants laws pev haha ;) I jest of course.

http://premisepunchtag.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/128883321459949058.jpg

What a privilege!

On a side note Pev, I quite enjoy your new national motto. Lol

Muh Roads wrote:On a side note Pev, I quite enjoy your new national motto. Lol

Thank you. For once I support the unscrupulous reactionary media in discrediting Chris Christie, because he's a crappy politician with crappy policies who would simply be extending Bush-Obamanism four more years if ever elected. Rand Paul is the guy, not this statist hack.

Hey look at this:

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?t=280010&f=20&view=unread#unread

Pevvania wrote:Thank you. For once I support the unscrupulous reactionary media in discrediting Chris Christie, because he's a crappy politician with crappy policies who would simply be extending Bush-Obamanism four more years if ever elected. Rand Paul is the guy, not this statist hack.

Agreed

Regional paper layouts have changed.

I still need to write an article for ours...

Was feeling bored, so I made a meme: http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/3000540.jpg

Here's a meme I made:

http://oi43.tinypic.com/izxlrn.jpg

Hello dear friends. I just want to share with you a beautiful quotation:

“I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon—if I can. I seek opportunity—not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations, and to face the world boldly and say, this I have done. All this is what it means to be an American.”

- Dean Alfange, 1952

Snabagag wrote:Hello dear friends. I just want to share with you a beautiful quotation:

“I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon—if I can. I seek opportunity—not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations, and to face the world boldly and say, this I have done. All this is what it means to be an American.”

- Dean Alfange, 1952

Bravo! :)

Snabagag wrote:Hello dear friends. I just want to share with you a beautiful quotation:

“I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon—if I can. I seek opportunity—not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations, and to face the world boldly and say, this I have done. All this is what it means to be an American.”

- Dean Alfange, 1952

Great quote. A lesson for all.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Here's a meme I made:

http://oi43.tinypic.com/izxlrn.jpg

Brilliant XD

TG I sent to Rightist America:

[iI'm sorry but I just cannot accept your embassy request. You have forged strong ties with National Socialist regions, whom we detest. Any real capitalist reviles all forms of socialism equally, and while we do not regard fascism as important a threat as communism, on ideological terms it is fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism.

That's good news. The Anti-Corporatist Party approves of any measure that separates our fine region from the corruption of National Socialist influence.

Who is running the current region mission?

The United Regions wrote:Who is running the current region mission?

I don't know.

That was not made by a commie. That was made by a capitalist.

But its kind of flattering that a museum has been made for us. ^_^ It shows that what we're doing is working!

Post self-deleted by Muh Roads.

Pevvania wrote:That was not made by a commie. That was made by a capitalist.

But its kind of flattering that a museum has been made for us. ^_^ It shows that what we're doing is working!

Haaha! You proposed embassies.. lol Although, i wish Grenada was on that list :)

Muh Roads wrote:Haaha! You proposed embassies.. lol Although, i wish Grenada was on that list :)

Grenada was the jewel in the crown for us. I'll release a more comprehensive list for our friend to use. :)

Libertatem! We need more nations to participate in operation south woods! Please telegram me for more details!

Libertatens, I plea to you all: please telegram [nation=short]Muh Roads[/nation], and join in on his operation.

Whether you do or do not have military-gameplay experience, your region urgently needs your service.

Please, consider this message.

Thanks,

[nation=short]The Liberty Front[/nation], Board Member #5

I'm thinking of pushing a bill that will amend the Board so it's elected every month or every two months. 3-month election cycles are pretty long. What do you guys think?

Pevvania wrote:I'm thinking of pushing a bill that will amend the Board so it's elected every month or every two months. 3-month election cycles are pretty long. What do you guys think?

I think that monthly elections would be good.

With three-month election cycles, a board member could go inactive, but there'd be no correcting it, until the entire three-months have passed (that I know of... Please correct me, if I am wrong).

I would support such a bill.

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