Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
My job as Attorney - General is to uphold the current laws. I'm not sure I can uphold such Authoritarian Laws such as
- The DERP Act.
Or
-Article VIII of the Constitution.
To me it seems like an Entrance of an Authoritarian regime limiting personal rights. My job is to uphold regional laws but I am not able to support a restriction on freedoms that this government has.
For a free region we have too many restrictions.
I'm stepping down immediately.
There is no reason for that. If you don't like something. Propose legislation to overturn something. You can have those laws repealed, like the PATRIOT and IMPERIAL Act.
Still my job is too uphold these laws. Until they are changed I cannot act to full effect.
I wish Obama was more like you. I wish that if he saw a law he did not like he would resign.....
You realize that if you step down, you probably won't be able to get it back. This could take at most three-four days once started. If someone does it, is it worth it?
I'm in the process of writing up a law right now...I'll give it time... However if the law isn't passed I will resign.
It's not about that. It's about not supporting authoritarians.
The Board is occupied with voting on the future of the War on Communism. So don't expect a speedy result from us for at least a day. Speaking of which. If we don't decide quickly enough. The Hiatus ends in two days.
What if we allowed Fascists and Communists in the region but we do not allow them to hold office. It would loosen the restriction something that would help those that oppose this law. It would help those that are for because they would not have to be worried about a Totalitarian takeover.
Marxist-Leninist Communists*
Shoot.
That is still just as bad.....
And it's worse.. you understand Marxist- Leninist is Stalinism? Marxism and Leninism are the good ones.
Yesssssssss
No. That's bad...very bad...
We cant just allow Totalitarians full rights. They will start flooding this region like bugs and this region will Fall under Totalitarian Control.
They can't. They are still elected and under influence of the Constitution. By limiting their freedoms we have in fact set up a one Ideological state.
Tell me what totalitarian wants to control this region? Besides TTA.
I don't see much of a point in that. That would defeat the purpose. They would have too much influence. I don't think it is authoritarian. This region was founded on the principle of an anti-communist/statist/extreme-leftist stance. It's our region, our rules. We don't those people having power in our region, so? I support the founding principle of our region, the very core of our region. The reason we are all proud to call ourselves citizens of Libertatem. I will oppose any legislation that stands to defile this region and its principles.
I'm no- you know what. Forget it.....I will never convince you otherwise.
The Totalitarian are the ones restricting people's rights. I'm fighting for rights. What are you doing.
I don't disagree with premise, I disagree with infringement on the region's history. And I disagree with Totalitarianism. And it doesn't make sense for them to even come to a region that is literally named Liberty.
I will vote no on any legislation that compromises our Political Security.
Why would they even want to be here. They would never get any support from the public. Unless they bring in a bunch of totalitarians, and then the region would go to hell. We are fighting for the rights of those who belong here. There are plenty of totalitarian regions for them to go. I say no, to them polluting my region.
I am [B]fighting[/B] for rights.
I am fighting for freedom of Belief and political freedoms. By banning Communist and Fascist parties you have basically become a NAZI Germany when it comes to politics and pay.
Your fighting for a one Ideological state.
Totalitarians want to take our rights why would we allow them to do it? A Vote to Give Totalitarians Political Rights is a Vote to turn Libertarium into Totalitarium.
Politics and party systems.
We have Libertarians,Conservatives,Socialists,and a mix of the three. We are not a one Ideological State.
Politically we are. Name on TRUE Socialist in this region.
*Hint ain't me.
And no. Neither was NAZI Germany. They had Nazis, Fascists, Monarchies and Right- Authoritarian ideologies allowed.
No, actually I'm not. Why would you want to give people like that the ability to defile our region? This region was made to fight those ideologies. You should know this by now. Don't like it? You have the ability to leave. It was your choice to be here.
*Libertatem
^
I am fighting to dissolve totalitarian regions and allow liberties to be practiced there (under our benevolence, of course), as well as to defend regions if they need our help.
Germany wasn't created for the sole purpose of fighting those ideologies. We were.
NAZI Germany was.
Occupation. Of course. This is a FAILED DEMOCRACY. Preaching freedom from the mountain tops then denying the basic rights and freedoms of the ability to believe what one wishes and hold a position of government or even found a party.
I believe our division and arguments alone would indicate we are not ready to continue the War. There are a multitude of other reasons, of course, and I hope the Board will see this.
Also, I am ashamed of the lack of transparency; the Board votes in secret, even though they are not required by the Constitution to do so.
Occupation perhaps, but involvement? Not at all. I'd take over a region, and like the libertarian spirit, I'd LEAVE YOU ALONE. That's it. Or is my mere presence more reviled than the liberties that said region has gained over Libertatem "occupation."
It's one person arguing in circles.
And you are deploying possibly the oldest logical fallacy in the book. There is no such thing as Nazi Germany. We aren't Democratic America. We weren't Republican America when Bush was in office. And we aren't Reaganist Libertatem. That contention falls. Nazis weren't trying to fight an ideology, they were trying to make a better Germany and got led of the path due to an insane power monger. The Holocaust wasn't even their chief act. It is just what is remembered in history. Which is why you are trying to use it to win an argument where you have no foothold. Would you like to talk about the Nazi's stance on the economy? Their superb animal rights policies? No. You just want to deploy the synonymous word recognition with evil to trick the people watching this argument. Your second contention falls.
I agree why vote for Someone if you cant see their voting record.
Their stance on economics was crap. Animals rights screw it secret experiments on humans? Banning Political Ideologies? Fascism?
And I'll repeat this.
This is a FAILED DEMOCRACY. Preaching freedom from the mountain tops then denying the basic rights and freedoms of the ability to believe what one wishes and hold a position of government or even found a party.
I would argue that purging Germany of the Jews was a big part of their "master plan" but meh. Pretty much this.
We agree on something.
If I may speak on behalf of TTA for just a second, there was a Nazi Germany, and it was evil. Instead of defending them, at least have the decency of defending your own claims.
Does it really matter though? It's not your business to know who other people vote for.
If I may speak for Humpheria for a moment, no it isn't.
For one, it hasn't failed.
For another, it wasn't a democracy in the first place; the region is a business model with elements of democracy.
That was what they thought would make a better and more pure Germany so Hump is correct.
One question. Due to the Party System being Privatized on hold the right to not be restricted by the Government in what I do with it. Correct?
Oh Corporatism. Nice.....
Correct.
Then he contradicts himself.
So Libertatem is a cooperative workplace? Irony!
....No. Not at all. Sadly.
Not necessarily corporatism, but it definitely would have gone down that road if we hadn't reformed to become somewhat more democratic.
What democracy we do have works fine. The point is that we're going to need more and more of it as time goes by.
Quite ironic, considering we're not cooperating.
We aren't voting by telegram to be secret. It's easier to hold votes in such a small group that way. That is how I have held Board votes since my initial election as Chairman. If you want transparency, here is my initiating telegram:
"The two-week hiatus is coming to a close. We need to decide the future of the war. Please vote, and feel free to voice your thoughts as well. A majority of three votes is needed to continue the war. Since this is a big vote, as Chairman I will not vote unless if there is a two-two tie. The very future of our region depends on this vote. Choose wisely."
Currently, no one has voted. Miencraft will not vote until morning. I had full intentions to release the names corresponding with the votes after the vote had concluded due to the importance of the issue,
If you are going to attack my character, at least get it right. I'm not defending the Nazi Party (it was a party, not a country. There were opposition parties during Hitler's regime), I'm pointing out the fact that he is using a flawed argumentative style to influence his side, rather than arguing with relevancy to this issue. I am offended that you would lower me to this level. I am also outraged that you would go so far to instigate my support of that movement. Not every post I make during an argument is going to be defending my own claims. If I posted "Dogs are cute" right now, would you persecute me for not defensing my claims?
Then I wish it removed from the list of parties.....
It's time I leave this libertarian dictatorship.
Which no one us willing to give.
I prefer a middle of the road type of practical or regulated democracy.
Too much democracy and nothing gets done. Too little and well, that's totalitarianism, even if it is benevolent. Democracy should be pragmatic, efficient, and inclusive as much as possible without sacrificing any of the former.
^that is giving my opinion in a democracy
This is not a Libertarian Dictatorship. It is not possible to be both Libertarian and a Dictatorship.
I am; perhaps it's time I get back into the legislation-drafting game.
I'm not surprised. What I am surprised by is how you managed to stay here so long even though you knew there would be disagreements. And there have been.
Surely this, of all things, is not the final straw? There's some of us who are at least willing to hear you out, which is more than can be said for other occasions!
Y'all managed to do it.
Again, I'm not defending them. I'm saying that the country wasn't entirely Nazi, thus it cannot be classified as Nazi Germany. It was Germany which had a majority party of the Nazis.
It is your freedom to fight to let Totalitarians lead a region that is dedicated to fight them. But it is our freedom to oppose giving them the ability to lead our region. If we are oppressing, we are oppressing oppressors.
It's possible to be an anarcho-fascist, though. :p
Both right. That is why we must embrace a practical amount of democracy and reform our system further to make it clear that we are libertarian.
I'm taking suggestions for what we can do to ensure that. I'm considering something to reduce government transparency when it is not required, which is most of the time.
The final straw was Our Presidents telegram to me basically telling me to step down or do what he wishes.
With respect to Pev, perhaps this is why many of us are considering electing a new President.
According to TTA
TTA, no one is saying that you can't fight to give oppressors rights in a region that is dedicated against them. People are simply saying that they will oppose said legislation. Who are you to say that just because they don't agree with you they are dictators?
I did not say you were Defending them.It would take a Crazy man to justify their actions. you were just being Historically correct.
He did what now?
The final star was our president. I'll post the telegram and it's issues in a moment.
Libertarian Police State.
*mind explodes*
I was not aware he did that. That is a completely different issue.
Indeed. We must see this for ourselves.
Back to my favorite, the war on "communism." How about on Friday afternoon we have a huge all inclusive vote to see whether we should continue it or not, instead of letting the board decide everything. Then we can see how the region really feels.
That's an idea. I would support this.
I agree wholeheartedly. Legislation is supposed to be supported by the House as well, not just a Board!
Post self-deleted by The Amarican Empire.
We don't have a House anymore. All of the citizens hold the ability to vote in public referendum, but it's not the House anymore because everyone is in it.
Join the ACOP. That's his baby.
I forgot about that.
...Wait, did we seriously vote away people's right to vote? That better have been an amendment!
No, they have the right to vote. It just isn't called the House of Representatives anymore. It is nameless.
Okay, I checked. But yeah, the citizen body is still supposed to participate in the region's legislative affairs, and I believe the law requires their involvement in more than just referenda.
Lack there of to the Board:
"Our war policies are what lead to the near invasion that caused this mess. I am obviously opposed to any reopen inch of endless conflict, but I don't believe the majority align with that point. Let me be clear, I vote "no" but if the majority decide to pass this resolution I suggest it be accompanied with a sweeping constitutional reform dealing with war principles and ARMA.
I am currently in Florida for the week and have access only to my phone, so if this route were to be taken I would appreciate the opportunity to help, but a wait would be necessary."
Referendum meaning a public vote on an issue.
I'll help remake ARMA if need be. I am already creating the military's own private version of ARMA which would be an extension of that, but more of a warrior's honor code.
That's why the vote on legislation. But the reason we didn't go straight to the citizens is because this is a military decision, and that power lies with the Board constitutionally. That is why it went to the Board, this isn't legislation. The Board has the power to declare war and make peace. But, I wouldn't be opposed to having a public vote. But, do you understand why that wasn't the go-to.
It should be known I'm not a fan of the DERP act and was considering trying to get it repealed.
See my previous comment.
I'm not in love with it. I was more talking more about the constitutional article.
Go ahead and repeal it; it has no effect now that the party system has been privatized and the original founder is long gone.
Indeed. I can see why things happened the way they did now, but this is indeed a matter for the people. Time to bring this to referendum.
Yeah, repealing it wouldn't do much. None of the members are even here anymore.
Both restrict freedom.
I'll post the telegram. Original and with my comments on what the problems are.
The telegram should suffice. If it is as bad as it sounds, we should be able to crack the code ourselves.
I'd still day it needs to be put to vote.. because:
I don't think I have some executive power to just remove it.. and even if I did, I refuse to use it.
I'll highlight the issue still.
Greetings, Time. I'd like to speak to you a bit about your position.
Now, I didn't appoint you. The founder did. But so far I'm not entirely impressed with your performance. You seem to have a limited understanding of the laws, and I need a competent understanding of it in my Attorney-General. So I'd like you to read up on the Constitution again and a few other of the laws. What Ido not want is any more of your judicial activism. The Constitution is a document set in stone. We can amend it, we can change it, but we cannot pick and choose our favourite parts of it to enforce. You in particular need to remember that Article 8 is still in effect, and will continue to be unless it is removed.
[B] This is the problem part [/B]
And don't forget that you work for me now, and my administration. [B]If you oppose my re-election, then you oppose your continued employment as Attorney-General. If I am not re-elected, do you think any of the other candidates will just stick with the current cabinet, and move on with advisers they campaigned against? No, they won't. I hope to see you more faithful to your job and more faithful to the Constitution.
You hold a very powerful position. Use it wisely.
I'll post my response following him. He is aware it was the founder whom appointed me...
My response.
Okay let's try this again.
Hello Pev. I think I need to speak to you about my position.
First you need to understand. I work for the Region and my beliefs before I personally work for you. That being said I am able to exercise three rights I gained by being born.Â
- Freedom of Belief
- Freedom of Speech
andÂ
- Freedom to act upon my beliefs.
I have read Section 8. Hitler's first action was banning Communism. I find the Article to be a VERY Authoritarian action against the citizens of the region. However I'm not going to drop my beliefs because of a job. If my beliefs prevent me from holding government positions than I will leave. The government isn't here to restrict my rights. My socialist beliefs haven't infringed anyone's rights nor or they intended to. If you believe my beliefs are against my position. Tell the founder and court.
Next. Really? If you not being in office gets me out of office. So be it. I'm here to work for the Region. The thing the region needs is a new leading party. If that means I can't hold my position so be it. I am not against your Re-election. I am simply against your party being re-elected.
I'll say this once. If you feel I'm unfit to lead because of my beliefs. Tell me now. And tell the courts.
I think your threatened by me. I'm not trying to be threatening however your attitude towards me has worsened as I have gained support. If you feel threatened I'm sorry and I wish you tell me.
Well he has a point that as Attorney General you have to make sure all laws are followed not just the one you like. I don't really support him threatening you for your vote.
That's why I said the problem started on the second paragraph. I agreed with the first paragraph somewhat which is why I offered my job resignation.
While I disagree that Pev would do this. I do wish to point one thing out. You don't have the freedom to act upon your beliefs. You actually can't have beliefs when making official decisions. Your position requires an objective viewpoint.
That aside, I plan to talk to Pev about this to get his side and give him a chance to defend his actions before I jump to condemn him. But, at face value, it doesn't look good.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.