Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Republic Of Minerva wrote:On the anarchist/minarchist debate:

Anarchists believe that the rational actor will supremely take over - when this is not true. When a mob forms, it's participants are anything but rational. Go to any store on Black Friday and see how rational the actors behave. True, on some level this also happens in a government, but a government entity that is restrained knows what its priorities are and speaks for as many as possible. To that affect, governments are made the most accountable when they cover the most people - you don't want to enact any laws that will destabilize society (as it is a public demand). Whereas a private corporation or whatever, who wants to make as much money as possible, and don't worry if a few people get crushed by the crowd or the competition. After all, doesn't it benefit you when there are darwinistic laws operating to weed out some of the weak, those who are being nuisances (the homeless), and etc?

Another problem I have with anarcho-capitalism is that it cannot deal properly with what is called "the tradegy of the commons" without it devolving into an entity like the government or worse. For example, a law enforcement firm could protect a neighborhood, but even if that neighborhood is closed off, it still has to deal with people on the outside who benefit from their law enforcement. So what does a firm do? It draws up a quasi "social contract" that gives it the right to "tax" people who benefit from their services, regardless if they signed up to benefit from said service or not. Tada, the firm is now a government in all but name. This extends further - to the military and etc.

If one rejects laissez faire on account of Man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must, for the same reason, reject every kind of government action

The Lone Star wrote:Dat Mises tho

I actually cited Human Action on a sociology essay the other day. I was in a particularly rebellious mood and my teacher is an avowed "go to the gov for answers" type guy.

Human Action is life.

But Man, Economy, and State is the answer to it.

The Lone Star wrote:Human Action is life.

But Man, Economy, and State is the answer to it.

True story, I have a copy sitting next to my bed

Lack There Of wrote:If one rejects laissez faire on account of Man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must, for the same reason, reject every kind of government action

Then one must reject all of Society.

The Lone Star wrote:Human Action is life.

But Man, Economy, and State is the answer to it.

*Claps*

Those are book titles...

The Lone Star wrote:Rothbard or Mises?

Rothbard

The Time Alliance wrote:Here are my Economic policy leanings.

100%-Social Democracy

83%- Democratic Socialism

75%-Anarchism

67%-Marxism

42%-American Liberitarianism

33%-Totalitarianism

25%-Republicanism

8%- Neoliberalism

0%- Fascism 

From what test?

Off to school! See you hippies later :P

Hallo Island wrote:*pops open champagne* *Cork takes out a window and Einsiev's eye*

This is good for window makers, glass makers, fake eye makers, doctors, and cleaning people! Just by that you just helped the whole town!!!!

Hurray! Hurray! Hurray! Hurray for hallo!

Trick Shot wrote:From what test?

It's in my factbook. Under my views. The name should be in there.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:On the anarchist/minarchist debate:

Anarchists believe that the rational actor will supremely take over - when this is not true. When a mob forms, it's participants are anything but rational. Go to any store on Black Friday and see how rational the actors behave. True, on some level this also happens in a government, but a government entity that is restrained knows what its priorities are and speaks for as many as possible. To that affect, governments are made the most accountable when they cover the most people - you don't want to enact any laws that will destabilize society (as it is a public demand). Whereas a private corporation or whatever, who wants to make as much money as possible, and don't worry if a few people get crushed by the crowd or the competition. After all, doesn't it benefit you when there are darwinistic laws operating to weed out some of the weak, those who are being nuisances (the homeless), and etc?

Another problem I have with anarcho-capitalism is that it cannot deal properly with what is called "the tradegy of the commons" without it devolving into an entity like the government or worse. For example, a law enforcement firm could protect a neighborhood, but even if that neighborhood is closed off, it still has to deal with people on the outside who benefit from their law enforcement. So what does a firm do? It draws up a quasi "social contract" that gives it the right to "tax" people who benefit from their services, regardless if they signed up to benefit from said service or not. Tada, the firm is now a government in all but name. This extends further - to the military and etc.

That's the Nozickian argument against anarchy, but it's wrong. Firstly, his whole argument about the 'immaculate conception' of states is historically wrong. It's never happened before. And secondly, predicting the outcomes and patterns of a market that has never really existed is naive at best. There's nothing to indicate that a protection agency, operating in the limits of natural law, would somehow become dominant. 'Protection' is not a natural monopoly, it can be done by anyone regardless of skill. A 'protection' market would offer a wide range of different services and qualities. I think that the only way a protection agency could monopolise a given area of land is via the use of force, which contradicts libertarian principles.

Right now I seem to be stuck in the ideological wilderness between minarchist and voluntaryist. I recognise the natural illegality of the state, but at the same time I'd like a 'monopoly' limited to defense and protection. But I can't reconcile this belief with the immorality of force.

I just read an Interesting article by an Anarchist about how Minarchists are the "enemies of Anarchism".

It really honestly brought up some good points on how Anarchy differs from the other.

From the article:

"Libertarians want to roll back government to a much less oppressive size. In this goal, libertarian minarchists and anarchists often stand together and aim for the same goals, at least short term. In a limited sense, this may not be such a stupid idea. After all, pushing back the powers of government is a good thing, is it not?

Â

But what about those libertarians rejecting anarchism because they think government, for one reason or the other, is inevitable? Even with these, we can often stand shoulder to shoulder against numerous policies, political power, and oppression. After all, we all want to go in the same direction: push back and restrict the powers of government.

....But there is a problem with joining forces with minarchists; there is a fundamental difference that makes a minarchist-anarchist union utterly impossible. This difference is the principle of force and power – the principle of government. It is our very core belief as anarchists that force and power are wrong; that any involuntary subjection is always comparable to the end of the world. We have a true passion for justice, while minarchists do not.

Â

Allow me to rephrase this statement: What separates libertarian anarchists from libertarian minarchists is what also makes the former different from statist socialists: they have a fundamental belief in government as a means and end that we do not and cannot share. Minarchist libertarians may not agree with every policy assumed by government and they may even reject almost all that which government is about. The problem is that they support the fundamental principle of government, and on this issue, we cannot find common ground."

Pevvania wrote:Right now I seem to be stuck in the ideological wilderness between minarchist and voluntaryist. I recognise the natural illegality of the state, but at the same time I'd like a 'monopoly' limited to defense and protection. But I can't reconcile this belief with the immorality of force.

We've all been there at some point or another. Maybe you should just sleep on it. Why don't you go take a NAP

The Time Alliance wrote:I just read an Interesting article by an Anarchist about how Minarchists are the "enemies of Anarchism".

On an ideological basis, anarchist disagree with any form of statism, but to call minachrists enemies is more than a bit absurd. A society can not make a switch over night. It is only when men are ready for the transition to a free society that it becomes possible.

The minarchist agenda should be on the same level as anarchists (up until the end obviously, but that's an entirely different situation)

Lack There Of wrote:We've all been there at some point or another. Maybe you should just sleep on it. Why don't you go take a NAP

Hah.

I've surely got to research more on the non-aggression principle. I'm stuck in the same woods as Pev. lol

Lack There Of wrote:We've all been there at some point or another. Maybe you should just sleep on it Why don't you go take a NAP

National Action Party (UK)

Lack There Of wrote:On an ideological basis, anarchist disagree with any form of statism, but to call minachrists enemies is more than a bit absurd. A society can not make a switch over night. It is only when men are ready for the transition to a free society that it becomes possible.

The minarchist agenda should be on the same level as anarchists (up until the end obviously, but that's an entirely different situation)

Indeed. Men always believe they are ready however never are truly ready for the suffering Anarchy brings. As for the article it said state socialism and not communism.

Muh Roads wrote:Hah.

I've surely got to research more on the non-aggression principle. I'm stuck in the same woods as Pev. lol

Haha

Post self-deleted by Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes.

Here is what I got on the Socio-Economic Ideology Quiz:

American Libertarianism 80%

Anarchism 67%

Neoliberalism 58%

Social Democracy 58%

Marxism 50%

Fascism 42%

Democratic Socialism 33%

Republicanism 25%

Totalitarianism 0%

Don't know how Fascism or Marxism are so high but I mostly agree with the results

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Here is what I got on the Socio-Economic Ideology Quiz:

American Libertarianism 80%

Anarchism 67%

Neoliberalism 58%

Social Democracy 58%

Marxism 50%

Fascism 42%

Democratic Socialism 33%

Republicanism 25%

Totalitarianism 0%

Don't know how Fascism or Marxism are so high but I mostly agree with the results

Your over 50 percent Social Democrat. Good Job.

The Time Alliance wrote:Your over 50 percent Social Democrat. Good Job.

I knew you'd like that

American Libertarianism

92%

Anarchism

83%

Social Democracy

58%

Democratic Socialism

42%

Neoliberalism

25%

Fascism

8%

Marxism

8%

Republicanism

0%

Totalitarianism

0%

Huh.

Muh Roads wrote:American Libertarianism

92%

Anarchism

83%

Social Democracy

58%

Democratic Socialism

42%

Neoliberalism

25%

Fascism

8%

Marxism

8%

Republicanism

0%

Totalitarianism

0%

Huh.

See y'all are more Social Democratic than y'all say you are.

The Time Alliance wrote:See y'all are more Social Democratic than y'all say you are.

The results are... questionable. I'm curious to know how they tally up the percentages.

The Time Alliance wrote:

Indeed. Men always believe they are ready however never are truly ready for the suffering Anarchy brings.

What?

Muh Roads wrote:The results are... questionable. I'm curious to know how they tally up the percentages.

Easy.

What they do is tally it based on how many of your answers matched each. Thus

0 percent of your answers matched republicanism. And 92 percent of your answers matched American Libertarianism.

Pevvania wrote:That's the Nozickian argument against anarchy, but it's wrong. Firstly, his whole argument about the 'immaculate conception' of states is historically wrong. It's never happened before. And secondly, predicting the outcomes and patterns of a market that has never really existed is naive at best. There's nothing to indicate that a protection agency, operating in the limits of natural law, would somehow become dominant. 'Protection' is not a natural monopoly, it can be done by anyone regardless of skill. A 'protection' market would offer a wide range of different services and qualities. I think that the only way a protection agency could monopolise a given area of land is via the use of force, which contradicts libertarian principles.

The idea of a states conception happens when the basic forces required to sustain civilization centralize and the people accept it, whether out of utilitarian reasons or bs. The NAP would not stop people from organizing this way at all. It is implied, by the non existence of the state, that the NAP itself is voluntary as the principle would rely not on an authority making sure people follow it but voluntary constructs themselves (e.g. courts and police).

So then, what happens when the forces of jurisdiction monopolize by requiring each business and landowner under their sphere of influence to *voluntarily* submit to themselves? It would be unprofitable to run a protection firm and have freeloaders benefit from you. So said firm would get the right to evict (deport) said freeloaders from their sphere from the courts, using coercive means. Thus, a state is born.

I don't think anyone rejects the idea of natural monopolies forming. I think feudalism demonstrated that perfectly, actually, of natural monopolies forming that provide these services quite well. And I don't want to live under a feudalist state. Crazy anarcho monarchists...

Anarchy= A lead into Fascism and Monarchies.

The Time Alliance wrote:Anarchy= A lead into Fascism and Monarchies.

Do you know what those words mean?

Lack There Of wrote:Do you know what those words mean?

Yes. An anarchist society is easier to place under control of one man.

The Time Alliance wrote:Yes. An anarchist society is easier to place under control of one man.

Then why is Somalia still under Anarchy?

I feel like you just spew things that you read on the internet at us.

I have existed in Libertatem for 150 days!!!!!

Will reply to the longer posts later.

The Time Alliance wrote:Anarchy= A lead into Fascism and Monarchies.

I didn't know that many people were racist.

Alchandria wrote:Then why is Somalia still under Anarchy?

I feel like you just spew things that you read on the internet at us.

The Anarchists are led by someone at some point.

Pevvania wrote:Will reply to the longer posts later.

I didn't know that many people were racist.

Fascism isn't racism.

Sorry.

Fascist...

Communist...

Socialist...

all suck

Trick Shot wrote:Fascist...

Communist...

Socialist...

all suck

Communism= Perfect equal society without Government or classes everyone gets what they need.

Socialism= An Equal Economy where no personal rights are infringed on.

The Time Alliance wrote:The Anarchists are led by someone at some point.

Fascism isn't racism.

Sorry.

I would just like to clarify that Somalia isn't true example of an anarchist society. It is the example of what happens when you have an incredibly large governing apparatus fall apart quickly and unintentionally.

Leading isn't the issue here.

And true fascism is inherently racist, or at the least highly nationalistic.

The Time Alliance wrote:Communism= Perfect equal society without Government or classes everyone gets what they need.

Socialism= An Equal Economy where no personal rights are infringed on.

Except the right to produce to what you would like without outside influence, amongst other things.

Lack There Of wrote:I would just like to clarify that Somalia isn't true example of an anarchist society. It is the example of what happens when you have an incredibly large governing apparatus fall apart quickly and unintentionally.

Leading isn't the issue here.

And true fascism is inherently racist, or at the least highly nationalistic.

Nationalist and Racist aren't the same.....

Nationalism= Extreme Pride in ones country often believing it's the best.

Racism= Your Race is best.

Lack There Of wrote:Except the right to produce to what you would like without outside influence, amongst other things.

Socialism doesn't involve that. Not True Socialism....

And sometimes compromise is needed. To be equal you must give up a right or two....

The problem here is that We must protect Equality and Personal Freedom at the same time.

This is where Government comes into play. Mainly Socialism. Mainly Social Democracy. Where the Government influences some aspects of the economy which is in the framework of a capitalistic democracy.

The Time Alliance wrote:Nationalist and Racist aren't the same.....

Nationalism= Extreme Pride in ones country often believing it's the best.

Racism= Your Race is best. Socialism doesn't involve that. Not True Socialism....

And sometimes compromise is needed.

A nation being a collective group of people based on the geographic birth lottery and a race being a group of people based on the ethnic birth lottery. The principles behind them are the same.

True socialism believes in the public ownership of means of production, this does actually infringe on the rights of the individual who produces.

The Time Alliance wrote:To be equal you must give up a right or two....

words can not begin to describe how totally inaccurate this statement is.

The Time Alliance wrote:Nationalist and Racist aren't the same.....

Nationalism= Extreme Pride in ones country often believing it's the best.

Racism= Your Race is best. Socialism doesn't involve that. Not True Socialism....

And sometimes compromise is needed. To be equal you must give up a right or two....

Put them together and get a Jingoist.

You do not have to give up rights to be equal. You're definitions of political terms are so biased, you make the ideologies you like sound like they are infallible and the ones you don't sound like they are completely wrong. Communism does NOT bring about a perfect society. Let's take a look at China under Mao or North Korea right now. Man all those people are so equal. You say anarchism is bad because it puts one man on top, but this is natural phenomena. There will always be leaders who command people below them. That's just the way it is even without governments. The governmental officials of NK have far better lives than random citizens and the same can be said for the government of any communist country on Earth. Therefore your argument is invalid because shouldn't everyone be treated equal in the "perfect communist society?" That is what you said? So why isn't that so? It just doesn't work. I also feel you just read things on the internet and spit them out onto here without any real backing, just spewing facts that relate to what you favor with 0 validity.

The principles behind them aren't the same. Nationality and Race aren't the same thing. Close but no cigar.

True Socialism isn't government control it is instead cooperative ownership.

So you can be Equal without any rights taken away? Explain.

Everyone else gains rights equal to the people with the most. Duh. The much better solution to "equality."

Post self-deleted by The Time Alliance.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Everyone else gains rights equal to the people with the most. Duh. The much better solution to "equality."

Or maybe there could be no rich or poor. It may be impossible. Total equality is impossible. Which is why Social Democracy is the next best thing.

The Time Alliance wrote:

So you can be Equal without any rights taken away? Explain.

Men are born equal, it takes a state to divide them

The Time Alliance wrote:The principles behind them aren't the same. Nationality and Race aren't the same thing. Close but no cigar.

True Socialism isn't government control it is instead cooperative ownership.

So you can be Equal without any rights taken away? Explain.

The principles behind them are the same, blind allegiance to a group of people, many of whom the individual does not know, based on the environment of your birth.

Government is simply a nice way of putting forced collectivism, or cooperative ownership. State socialism is the only way socialist economics can even remotely function in a real world setting for longer than a blip of time. Voluntary collectivism is simply a bad idea to begin with and the results of which can be seen in the horrors of civil war era spain.

Aaaand welcome back to Libertatem and the Lack there of!

I'm your host, the State Manager!

Lack There Of wrote:Men are born equal, it takes a state to divide them

It takes another man to divide them.

Lack There Of wrote:The principles behind them are the same, blind allegiance to a group of people, many of whom the individual does not know, based on the environment of your birth.

Government is simply a nice way of putting forced collectivism, or cooperative ownership. State socialism is the only way socialist economics can even remotely function in a real world setting for longer than a blip of time. Voluntary collectivism is simply a bad idea to begin with and the results of which can be seen in the horrors of civil war era spain.

Social Democracy could work. Easily. It's a form of Socialism. Voluntaryism is indeed bad. Which is why I like a Government.

Here's what it comes down to, What is the message, for you, from the christian/hebrew creation allegory?

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Put them together and get a Jingoist.

You do not have to give up rights to be equal. You're definitions of political terms are so biased, you make the ideologies you like sound like they are infallible and the ones you don't sound like they are completely wrong. Communism does NOT bring about a perfect society. Let's take a look at China under Mao or North Korea right now. Man all those people are so equal. You say anarchism is bad because it puts one man on top, but this is natural phenomena. There will always be leaders who command people below them. That's just the way it is even without governments. The governmental officials of NK have far better lives than random citizens and the same can be said for the government of any communist country on Earth. Therefore your argument is invalid because shouldn't everyone be treated equal in the "perfect communist society?" That is what you said? So why isn't that so? It just doesn't work. I also feel you just read things on the internet and spit them out onto here without any real backing, just spewing facts that relate to what you favor with 0 validity.

LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE.

Do they have a government? Yes. Then they aren't communist. Your just as biased. Hypocrisy runs deep in this region.

Read what Communism is. It isn't North Korea. I honestly think you've been brainwashed against communism like almost everybody else in America.

Lack There Of wrote:Here's what it comes down to, What is the message, for you, from the christian/hebrew creation allegory?

What?

The Time Alliance wrote:What?

I believe our interpretations differ and this is the fundamental basis for our disagreement.

Lack There Of wrote:I believe our interpretations differ and this is the fundamental basis for our disagreement.

Ah makes sense.

The Time Alliance wrote:Ah makes sense.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that you hold the "original sin" view of the passage. Is that correct?

The Time Alliance wrote:It takes another man to divide them. Social Democracy could work. Easily. It's a form of Socialism. Voluntaryism is indeed bad. Which is why I like a Government.

What? That doesn't make any sense? Another man? It is literally government that makes you into the class that you belong. And social democracy i.e. socialism does not work because it reduces everyone to the same level. Humans are naturally competitive and want more than they have. More money. More power. More everything. And you should be able to do whatever you want and not be forced to blindly submit to government, at that a government ruled by whom? The rich. The powerful. The people with everything duping you into the façade that everyone is equivalent, when that's not how it works. Big government is evil for this very reason, it's slavery of the mind forcing you into a certain way of thinking. With nobody to tell you what you have to believe everything would be better. No racism. No retarded prejudice. No totalitarianism. Just man and what he desires. Something socialism does not allow for.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Aaaand welcome back to Libertatem and the Lack there of!

I'm your host, the State Manager!

missed the poke

The Time Alliance wrote:Communism= Perfect equal society without Government or classes everyone gets what they need.

Socialism= An Equal Economy where no personal rights are infringed on.

Except for the right to like...own things and maybe sell things ya know...

Today we'll talk about how we're lacking Libertatem, which is Latin for libert...hang on, I'm getting a message.

You mean we have liberty here? Well, that defeats the premise of today's show. See you next time!

Lack There Of wrote:I am going to go out on a limb and say that you hold the "original sin" view of the passage. Is that correct?

I take it literally as per my religion. I see no allegory however I do believe that the days in heaven aren't the same as our days.

(Your talking about Earth creation right? )

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:What? That doesn't make any sense? Another man? It is literally government that makes you into the class that you belong. And social democracy i.e. socialism does not work because it reduces everyone to the same level. Humans are naturally competitive and want more than they have. More money. More power. More everything. And you should be able to do whatever you want and not be forced to blindly submit to government, at that a government ruled by whom? The rich. The powerful. The people with everything duping you into the façade that everyone is equivalent, when that's not how it works. Big government is evil for this very reason, it's slavery of the mind forcing you into a certain way of thinking. With nobody to tell you what you have to believe everything would be better. No racism. No retarded prejudice. No totalitarianism. Just man and what he desires. Something socialism does not allow for.

1. Any man can put you below him. Thus a class is born. High schools don't have government. Everyone is still in a Social Class.

2. Social Democracy.... isn't exact socialism. Read what Social Democracy is. It is "Socialist Scheming within the framework of a capitalistic democracy. "

3. Government is already controlled by the rich. It's called Corporatism which spawns from Capitalism.

4. Racism wasn't started by Government. It was started by man. Nor was Prejudice. Totalitarianism can be achieved without Government.

Trick Shot wrote:Except for the right to like...own things and maybe sell things ya know...

I just went over this.....

Trick Shot wrote:Except for the right to like...own things and maybe sell things ya know...

True Socialism isn't government control it is instead cooperative ownership.

Communism is no Government.

The Time Alliance wrote:LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE.

Do they have a government? Yes. Then they aren't communist. Your just as biased. Hypocrisy runs deep in this region.

Read what Communism is. It isn't North Korea. I honestly think you've been brainwashed against communism like almost everybody else in America.

Communism is literally what made up the basis of ideals in the USSR. The government followed communism. Communism spread to many places including, oh boy jee what is this right here, NORTH KOREA. This is why there is a North and South Korea. Communism and Capitalism. Duh. But who can blame you? You probably haven't studied this in school yet because, oh yeah that's right, you're in like 8th grade! You probably just studied socialism like one time, got hooked on it, and then you just blindly support socialism even when someone brings up and excellent point against your beliefs. Now you are incapable of free thinking because you're mind is so deluded by sticking to one thing. Believe me, I've been there and I can say that even if you deny this statement that is most likely all you are. A blind supporter of an ideology that probably googles a good argument every time someone says something about socialism. Nice.

The Time Alliance wrote:I take it literally as per my religion. I see no allegory however I do believe that the days in heaven aren't the same as our days.

(Your talking about Earth creation right? )1. Any man can put you below him. Thus a class is born. High schools don't have government. Everyone is still in a Social Class.

2. Social Democracy.... isn't exact socialism. Read what Social Democracy is. It is "Socialist Scheming within the framework of a capitalistic democracy. "

3. Government is already controlled by the rich. It's called Corporatism which spawns from Capitalism.

4. Racism wasn't started by Government. It was started by man. Nor was Prejudice. Totalitarianism can be achieved without Government.

And shut up. Nobody wants to hear you say the minute difference in Socialism and State Socialism and Communism and any other left wing things you like. Nobody likes that and it is really annoying because you know what we mean, yet you do it anyway. Is that just what the Wikipedia article on socialism says and you just stick to that?

The Time Alliance wrote:Socialism= An Equal Economy where no personal rights are infringed on.

...except for private property.

The Time Alliance wrote:True Socialism isn't government control it is instead cooperative ownership.

Cooperative socialism is perhaps the original form of socialism, but in this day and age one of many variants.

Strange to see how activity does not correlate with population. We're simultaneously at our lowest nation level, and highest level of activity from different nations, in months.

Pevvania wrote:Strange to see how activity does not correlate with population. We're simultaneously at our lowest nation level, and highest level of activity from different nations, in months.

In fact, I think that one time when we had 100+ nations there really wasn't all that much going on in the RMB.

Funny how this stuff works.

Pevvania wrote:Strange to see how activity does not correlate with population. We're simultaneously at our lowest nation level, and highest level of activity from different nations, in months.

I came. I gave this region a dose of disagreement.

Pevvania wrote:Cooperative socialism is perhaps the original form of socialism, but in this day and age one of many variants.

The original form is the True form.

Pevvania wrote:...except for private property.

One of the parts of True socialism I dislike.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:And shut up. Nobody wants to hear you say the minute difference in Socialism and State Socialism and Communism and any other left wing things you like. Nobody likes that and it is really annoying because you know what we mean, yet you do it anyway. Is that just what the Wikipedia article on socialism says and you just stick to that?

You can't tell me to shut up. I can say what I want just like you can. When did I ever state I liked State Socialism and these are the definitions and what they are in pure form. You act as if Capitalism has no downfalls. Inequality, Corporatism, Rich-Poor gap, greed........

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Communism is literally what made up the basis of ideals in the USSR. The government followed communism. Communism spread to many places including, oh boy jee what is this right here, NORTH KOREA. This is why there is a North and South Korea. Communism and Capitalism. Duh. But who can blame you? You probably haven't studied this in school yet because, oh yeah that's right, you're in like 8th grade! You probably just studied socialism like one time, got hooked on it, and then you just blindly support socialism even when someone brings up and excellent point against your beliefs. Now you are incapable of free thinking because you're mind is so deluded by sticking to one thing. Believe me, I've been there and I can say that even if you deny this statement that is most likely all you are. A blind supporter of an ideology that probably googles a good argument every time someone says something about socialism. Nice.

Honestly there's nothing even to discuss. All this is is a paragraph meant to insult me.

Random question of the day:

If leftism was its own religion, what would be its deites, and prophets?

The Time Alliance wrote:True Socialism isn't government control it is instead cooperative ownership.

Communism is no Government.

WTF? You need to lay down

Trick Shot wrote:WTF? You need to lay down

It's true....

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:Random question of the day:

If leftism was its own religion, what would be its deites, and prophets?

What type of Leftism? Economic? Social?

The Time Alliance wrote:I take it literally as per my religion. I see no allegory however I do believe that the days in heaven aren't the same as our days.

(Your talking about Earth creation right? )

The specifics are not really the big issue here the message is. As is taught by most mainstream branches of the church, because of Adam and Eve's actions humans are branded from unintentionally evil from birth, we are lead to believe that man is inherently sinful and needs to be influenced by one way or another in order to stay "good" in the eyes of the creator. This is a rather insulting view of the creator. Here we have an all knowing and powerful deity whom for reasons unbenounced to us creates these creatures capable of independent thought. Now if we truly believe that God is all knowing that it is logical to conclude he knew the consequences of creation before he even started creating. If we take the original sin concept and apply it to this situation then we have a very sadistic creator, who arguably wouldn't care enough to send his only son several millennia later.

Rather than accepting this rather illogical approach to faith (RRRG let this one go please) we can gather that the creator gave us the most powerful gift possible; free will. Adam and eve were given the opportunity to sin in full view of God and he knew it. He did not create some puppet like creature who would behave as a dog, but rather man in his own image given the freedom to rationalize and act as he sees fit. One of the biggest overlooked portions of the story is the aspect of what the two humans didn't do. It is not specified how long they lived before they broke the rules. They may very well have lived for years without sinning and we are here to judge them on their one infamous action. I cannot agree to a creed that judges a man by his worst moment of weakness, rather I believe in a God who created a man sovereign to his own needs and capable of both infinite good and infinite evil.

The Time Alliance wrote:What type of Leftism? Economic? Social?

In Total.

Your views are close to my religions. However my religion does believe that The "Natural Man" is an "enemy" of God.

We believe in Fee will of choice.

The Neo-Confederate States Of America wrote:In Total.

Ummm....... Then I'm not Sure.....

The Time Alliance wrote:Your views are close to my religions. However my religion does believe that The "Natural Man" is an "enemy" of God.

and thus our disagreement arises

The Time Alliance wrote:I came. I gave this region a dose of disagreement. The original form is the True form.One of the parts of True socialism I dislike. You can't tell me to shut up. I can say what I want just like you can. When did I ever state I liked State Socialism and these are the definitions and what they are in pure form. You act as if Capitalism has no downfalls. Inequality, Corporatism, Rich-Poor gap, greed........

Honestly there's nothing even to discuss. All this is is a paragraph meant to insult me.

I'm well aware of the flaws with capitalism. Everything has it's flaws. Ups and downs. and you have nothing to say because you know I am right. And greed is natural, it is natural for you to want things that you can not always have or to want more than you need. There is inequality in socialism also. If I bake a pie I should be free to eat it all to myself right? No says the socialist, everyone gets a slice. If I buy something at a store I should only pay for the value of what is I am buying right? Nope, not only am I buying my product, but also paying for public works projects or paying for a man to earn money without working. I can afford to buy the services of a doctor, a privilege that I am purchasing with money I have made myself. Why should I be worried that others can not do the same? Here comes the socialist! Everyone should be able to use a privilege that normally needs to be paid for! Which makes no sense! Pretty soon everyone will be able to just walk into hotels or take cars from car lots for free because they can't pay for it and that's just not fair. It's just not fair that everyone else pays for theirs with hard earned money, some of which is taken to pay for ridiculous government expenditures. Now they want everyone to have a product, a privilege. They call it a "basic human right" but I think human begins did just fine without wifi or cars or cell phone or any material item being handed out free of charge for all people of lower social class simply because it is not fair that other people have them. That is bull and you know it.

Lack There Of wrote:and thus our disagreement arises

*Glares Sharply with a wide Screen view*

Indeed.

Hola amigos. *throws sombrero in the air*

We accept all cultures here, but we keep our RMB conversations in English. 'Tatem.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:We accept all cultures here, but we keep our RMB conversations in English. 'Tatem.

Irrisorie igitur nomen quod est latine.

(Ironic, then, that our name is Latin.)

Miencraft wrote:Irrisorie igitur nomen quod est latine.

(Ironic, then, that our name is Latin.)

It draws parallels to America, a name derived from the...Italian, I believe...name of Amerigo.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:It draws parallels to America, a name derived from the...Italian, I believe...name of Amerigo.

Yay Italians.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:It draws parallels to America, a name derived from the...Italian, I believe...name of Amerigo.

Yes, Amerigo Vespucci. I teh smart one. :P

The Time Alliance wrote:Hola.

Hola. ¿Como estas?

Einsiev wrote:Hola. ¿Como estas?

Muy bien gracias, ¿y tu?

I always found that ironic. I made my motto: "Perge ad libertatem" Onward to Liberty in Latin. And five minutes later I got a message from this guy named Pevvania from a region that was in my motto.

The Time Alliance wrote:Muy bien gracias, ¿y tu?

Maso menos. Mi abuela es de Puerto Rico. That's why I can speak this so well. :P

Einsiev wrote:Maso menos. Mi abuela es de Puerto Rico. That's why I can speak this so well. :P

I take Spanish at school so I'm a little rusty.

I also take Spanish at school. I'm going into advanced classes next year.

I took Italian, get on my level.

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