Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Also Libertarianism is not just social. You got leftist on your scale so your not that Libertarian. You need economic freedom.
Economically. Not socially/Politically.
I'm the closest centrist.
-0.28 economic wise.
Also Fun Fact: I was in fact a Communist when I first entered this region (which I called centrism). Upon dismissing those fallacies I decided to go a bit more right to what I considered centrism (Corporatism and State Capitalism). So yeah.
I'm the most Libertarian region wise.
Why you may ask? Regions DON'T HAVE economics.
I think TNUS is actually the most authoritarian here.
So that's a thing.
Centrist is not Libertarian.
That's actually a twisted thought. Due to the fact economics aren't a part of regional government. I might actually be the most Libertarian when it comes to regional ideas.
If there's Left Libertarians then there are centrist ones.
I said you are not a Libertarian not your ns nation compared to regional politics.
And before you say Left Libertarianism isn't true libertarianism. Let me direct you to my Stalinism isn't Communism arguments and how you guys responded.
No Scotsman Logical Fallacy.
That's just socially. You're not a real libertarian unless you believe in free markets. In fact, you can't fully believe in any form of personal liberty without believing in free markets. I got +10 economic and -5 social.
As I said, I'd just cut its anti-drug use operations and other things it shouldn't be doing.
One of the reasons 9/11 happened was arguably FBI negligence and internal political battles.
And I'm telling you. By way of what you can do in this region. I'm the most Libertarian.
I never said I was the most Libertarian. I said region wise I was and Socially/Politically I was.
Pev. Stop. Stop now.
Last time I took the compass test, I was all the way to the lower right side.
But you change your ideology like every month.....
No I don't. I change economics.
I have been Libertarian like this since entering the region.
And I have been Centrist like this like forever.
That's not a No True Scotsman. If that's a No True Scotsman, then so is considering a black person black or a white person white. I could say that I'm a Mexican circus monkey, but my claim alone does not make it so. You don't believe in liberty if you believe in robbing people at the barrel of a gun, redistributing wealth and interfering in voluntary exchange.
Apart of an ideology is economics.
Stalinism isn't communism. Real communism is Marxism, which means a cooperative anarchist society, which is completely unlikely. Anarchy is inherently individualist.
Lol North Korea is calling tsar a Capitalist that has embraced Libertatem.
Has anyone else noticed that whenever someone on the NS left loses a debate they just link you to that stupid your logical fallacy is page and then tell you your argument is invalid because you used what they think is almost like a logical fallacy but not really? That happens to me a lot.
Example:
Me: You are hideously ignorant on social policy.
Random 11 year old Stalinist: YOU USED AN AD HOMINEM I WIN HAHAHA
Also, TTA, if you say "No True Scotsman" without having any clue what it means one more time I'm going to hitchhike to Georgia to punch you in the mouth.
It's like saying that hallo is a humble devoted Christian.
Ah, okay then.
Source?
Eheh
This Wikipedia article provides some interesting points on the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill
You wouldn't punch my face.
I don't though you twit.
Hey now, let's not start whipping out the T-word. I was making the point that "left libertarian" is an oxymoron.
Oh wouldn't I?
My hobby is back handing GID in the face with my big silver rings on.
But it isn't. And frankly. The No true Scotsman fallacy would apply.
No True Libertarian believes in Leftist Economics.
But my face is wonderful.
Leftist economics and Libertarian economics are mutually exclusive.
Big, effeminate silver rings. Like the one with the giant pink moonstone.
TTA, libertarianism is a inherently right ideology. Left Libertarianism is an excuse for communists to pretend to not be communists.
Pev is not a twit all the time. Sometimes he is bloody brilliant.
I love that ring,
Key words.
And Communism is Inherently Stateless.
Like I said. Hallo would never punch my face.
Must I tell the stapler story again?
Yeah but that was because he did bad stuff.
So are you.
Not to the extent he is though. You wouldn't staple my face or that crap.
*cough*
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=304475
Well since the definition of libertarian is belief in liberty as the ultimate political goal, this is completely true. I'm not saying you believe in organised theft and murder, but it's essentially the "left-libertarian" philosophy, with a hint of
"Free love!... As long as the government permits it."
"Legalise marijuana!... As long as the government owns the drug industry."
"No more corporate welfare!... Unless it's regulations."
"End war!... Unless it means stealing from and murdering our own people."
Thank you, Amarican.
What is "it's"?
Interesting Wikipedia article Pev.
Also, how do you view the Bourbon Democrats of the late 1800s (before they sold out)? I think they were quite libertarian to a fault.
They were okay. They were Anti-Imperialism and were Pro-Gold standard. But Lassiez-Faire capitalism again comes up as something they support and it's just no matter what I can't see Laizzes-Faire ending well for some reason.
It is.
I'm a big fan of Grover Cleveland and the general philosophy of the movement, but unfortunately they did not push for civil rights, which tarnishes their record for constitutionalism. This is excusable, however, in the greater context of the Democratic Party throughout its history, which has been overwhelmingly opposed to civil rights up until the 60s. At least the Bourbons didn't care about the issue instead of actively fighting black rights.
No you said It's basically.
What are you referring to when you say It's?
Organised theft and murder is essentially the left-libertarian philosophy. That is what I meant.
Ah. I see.
So Left-liberitarianism isn't Liberitarianism economically. So it can't be Libertarian. Yet Stalinism beliefs in States.Yet we classify it still a Communism.
They are forms. sectors if you will of ideologies. All idologies have sectors that believe in it fully or take from other idologies; however they are still under said ideology.
Stalinism is not communism; it is an ideology that proposes a certain path to communism. Stalinists are distinguished from an-coms in that they believe the path to communism is not the immediate abolition of the state in the hopes that everyone will collectivise. I think we can all agree that this hope is deeply naive. Stalinists hold the traditional Marxist-Leninist belief that a vanguard state should be established to guide society towards the creation of communism, but diverge from it in that they reject transitionary neo-liberal policies and favour state socialism.
Just let them have their drugs. Victimless crime.
Suddenly quiet.
Why all da Pev hatin guise?
IDK
Liberosia took the PC test. So hopefully he posts his results soon.
We should have someone make a factbook for that regional compass and drop it into the WFE somewhere as a miscellaneous thing.
Great idea. ISA proposed that back in October. It'd be great to see it implemented.
Economics: 8.5
Social: -4.92
Made RL campaign phone calls today. 1020 in five hours. I'm awesome.
Well well well
Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44
Awesome, who for?
No one in particular. Voter IDs for IndGOP.
Hmmm. Touchy issue there.
I'm a little tied up with my essay at the moment, Mien. I'll take a look tomorrow.
I thought so, but that's mostly for the other two people that are lurking the RMB right about now that haven't looked yet.
...YES! YEEEEES!
How is it touchy? Calling someone to make sure they gave a valid phone number when they registered to vote. And asking registered Republicans if they want to retain membership.
I don't see a problem with it, it seems like a common-sense issue. But some see voter IDs as racist, for some reason.
More Libertarian (Non-economically of course) than EVERYONE here!
I dunno.
Congrats. You have the most fluid ethical beliefs in the region.
...
...
...But...damn it
https://imgflip.com/i/amm8u
^
Because white people support it.
And if white people support something, it must be racist.
Radical Libertarian Centrist.
Nailed it!
Shush.
This is a silly statement on a number of levels, but I will accept your challenge and raise you one score. Link if you please
God bless your soul
DAMN!
What do you guys think about reforming the impeachment process? Section II, Subsection IX of the Presidents' Amendment reads: In the event that the President has corrupted the office, abused their power or otherwise broken the laws of the region, an impeachment vote may be called by the approval of half of the House, needing a unanimous vote to secure an impeachment.
So right now, it's nearly impossible to impeach a president. To impeach me, it would require 40 nations to not only call an impeachment vote, but to actually do it. Libertatem, how should we constitutionally reform impeachment to balance making it easier to depose unconstitutional presidencies and prevent it from becoming a popularity contest?
It seems to me that of we replaced the house with registered citizens most of the issues would be alleviated
Additionally, a replacement of "unanimous" with 80% would be ideal
That's still a pretty steep requirement, considering that most of the House is inactive on the RMB. Perhaps it could require 4/5ths of the Board and House?
I think that the House should be redefined in the Constitution, from "all nations in Libertatem not vested with a legislatoral position" to "all [B]citizens[/B] in Libertatem not vested with a legislatoral position."
I would change that particular segment in the Presidents' Amendment to:
an impeachment vote may be called by the approval of [B]one-third[/B] of the House, needing a [B]two-thirds majority[/B] vote to secure an impeachment
4/5ths of the Board and the voting representatives* of the House
Sorry, I meant of the registered citizenry. I'm not sure I like the idea of the board being involved. A steep requirement would be ideal to keep it from a minority set against an unpopular president from gaining traction. If the president does something illegal it should be pretty clear cut and I doubt an 80% would be difficult to attain.
If the House were redefined as "all citizens", as opposed to "all residents", that is.
That's a good idea, TNUS. I'll consult with the founder on it.
An early congratulations to GID, on his resounding victory.
Gosh darn it you polite gentleman you. You done went and let him win
Yeah, I suppose I did. Anyhow, I thank you for your vote, Lack.
We've begun growing once more. Huzzah!
So guys: favourite governor at the moment?
Gary Johnson...
Oh, at the moment? None of them.
Mike Pence. Totally not just because he's a Hoosier. But seriously, he has great policies
Gary Johnson had a remarkable record as Governor considering that he had to grapple with a solidly Democratic legislature during his tenure.
It's not silly but we shall see.
HTTP://www.politicalcompass.com/test
They called him "Governor Veto," as he vetoed over 750 bills. He left office with one of the only four states in America to have a balanced budget. Apparently he also climbed Mount Everest. Badass.
Thank you, friend.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.