Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
The decision is still theirs, though...but you can always send them a short persuasive telegram that includes who you want as Manager and why.
Brb, there's something very important I have to do...
Well, I just broke my streak of time spent in this region, but it was well worth it.
So the Empire now comprises 172 nations...not bad.
Not bad at all.
Yay!
That's. Not 175. Something in the back of my head is yelling at that number for not being divisible by 5. It's still a good number though, and is only going to get better.
The number is ever-growing.
Our strength matches many regions on NS now.
We're the harbingers of the War on Communism.
Yes. But remember, we cannot brag. That would break the non-aggression principle. We are not the aggressors, instigators or protagonists. Remember friends that we are the defenders. I personally believe in non-aggression. We will not attack, as this entire war on Communism is strictly a defensive war. After all, is't the leftist the "rebel"? They started this war in 1848. with the saying: "Marx is God and Engels is his prophet".
Our Libertarian Policy dictates to promote peace and prosperity. Listen to Ron Paul's ideas. He believes in defensive foreign policy, but open to trade and friendship. Universalize Non-Aggression!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY
I can agree to taking the VP, and giving up my candidacy as Military Manager. The contest isn't too fair, due to everyone's different timezones and actual RL lives, since I'll be busy all week (getting confirmed as a Catholic and other stuff).
@Conservative Idealism
I'd disagree. Did we start the war? The Red Menace led it's parasites in Russia, China and other places against peaceful societies. They disrupted the peace by becoming the aggressors, proving they don't believe in anarchism but merely blind loyalism to any idol. IE: Stalin, Mao or Castro. The real revolutionaries, like Che, Trotsky and others, were crushed through opportunists.
We are fighting, in a realistic sense, simple corrupt authoritarianism, since real communism has never existed according to commies themselves. This is why we should remain the defenders. That means we can take commie regions, but they are in defense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Ok. These are my ideas on a "War on Communism" and my personal feelings about the NAP:
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_new_sea_territory/detail=factbook/id=113511
So on the contest thing, I'm going to push back a bit for the sake of discussion. (it's probably safe to say it won't be happening anyway given the lack of interest--I'm totally fine with that). But don't we want somebody who has the best combination of those factors for the position? That seems fair if somebody is located in the best time zone, is available at the right time of day, has time to raid, etc.
I'm not against a contest, I just want to be able to raid effectively. I won't be able to do that this week.
NST, I do demonize communism. As an end, it reduces the human condition to the collective. It's also bad economics.
@ Liberosia
Well, what I mean is the intent. I don't believe Marx intended to kill 140 Million people with his ideas. The ideas are needless to say failures, but not "evil". No ideology is truly "evil", because liberty allows it. So, we can not be aggressors and attack his ideas in such ways. We must provide valid reasons why communism is a failure: It has killed 140 Million people.
"[Marx, Engels and Lenin] They didn't plan for the rise of stalinists, and the perverting of their ideology to promote totalitarianism... Sadly, even with the best intent, communism's greatest contribution to society has been things like The Holodomor, Great Purges, Khmer Rouge and other massive democides."
These came from opportunism, corruption and manipulation, which communism seeks to destroy. This is our justification, not the "they are demons" argument, no matter how red they are.
The transition stage of socialism is an inherent plan prescribed by Marx. He advocated dictatorship, therefore violence. I have no sympathy for the bastard.
He advocated anarchy. I've read the Manifesto. I have no sympathy for him either but the violence was caused the moment a revolution happened, such as the Paris Commune. That started the war as one of the first major attacks by the communist instigators of force. We can now reply with our Rights of Self-Defense and Defense of the Third Person, which justifies our war.
Perhaps Marx's faults do not fall purely in his intents, but in the (idiotic) fundamental flaws in his assumptions about economics and history. I too have read the Manifesto, and it is not really what I'm referring to. I'm talking about his work, Das Kapital. Thick book, I don't think I have the stomach to read it (over a thousand pages of communism....yeah, no...). However, Marx predicted in his works a violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the worker, installing a "dictatorship of the Proletariat." He obviously had no problems with this, or he would have condemned it. He just accepted it as a good, factual course history had to take in order to REACH his "anarchy". What I'm saying is, communism is the end result of Marx's predicted violence and pain. MARX IS an advocate of violent overthrow. If the founder is an advocate of violence, then the ideology must be as well. This is what makes communism a FUNDAMENTALLY immoral, flawed, and, yes, evil ideology. An ideology that just blatantly disregards freedom, individual rights, and private property.
Let me make my thesis clear: communism, from start to end, in its Marxian form, is wrong.
Let's put this in perspective. I concede the desired end result of communism is a peaceful society where everyone shares the wealth that can be generated and there is no greed or self interest; material security is "guaranteed" and everyone is blissfully happy.
Problems:
1) Peaceful society: Socialism is anything but peaceful. We can immediately eliminate this from the "end result", because it is impossible to achieve communism purely through voluntary means. Some people (including myself) are just inherently self-interested. I would need to be eliminated in order for a communist society to function.
2) Shares the wealth: in socialist economies, wealth contracts overtime due to inefficiency, which leads to a lower standard of living for all. There is no reason to believe communism would function any better. In fact, with no incentives but altruism, there is no incentive to innovate, invest, etc. to expand an economy and the standard of living. Communism would be even worse than socialism because, at least, socialism has a government that steers the producing section of the economy in a (sort of) generally right direction.
3) Greed or self interest: maybe not inherent in all human beings, but definitely in a lot (most of the people in America for example). Proletariats are greedy because they want to take what belongs to others.
4) End result: no one is happy. Material wealth contracts overtime. Communism goes against human nature.
Exactly. That's what I meant by "proving they aren't anarchists", because they violated the non-aggression principles of anarchism as a whole.
Post self-deleted by Liberosia.
The way you define it, Communism is false. It does not exist on a scale larger than, what, 20 people? An impossible, figment of the imagination, which has had a bunch of "intellectuals" write books about it.
For all intents and purposes, in the REAL world where we have to deal with actual stuff
Communism=Socialism
You may have guessed, I am not an anarchist.
I am not currently, but I take influences from anarchism. I am a hardline libertarian.
Anarchism only works with a moral base, yet communists hate all religion....
Well, I am a Christian, so I don't fundamentally believe that the State is evil. In fact, it has some legitimate functions it must perform (namely courts and a military). When it goes beyond those basic functions, it become immoral, because it expropriates to excess.
The Declaration of Independence states government is needed to secure the liberty of the people, but it can be replaced when it becomes "destructive" of those ends. Anarchy is Left-wing, like Ayn Rand once said. Yes, it eliminates the coercive power of the state...for a while. However, it is literally the best environment for some fascist to emerge. Anarchy requires everyone be good. Nope, some people are bad.
I am not currently, but I take influences from anarchism. I am a hardline libertarian.
Anarchism only works with a moral base, yet communists hate all religion....
--------------
Well I have no real Republican concrete definition. I am more of an 1863 Mississippi Republican man. But rest assured.. I am probably more republican than Mitt Romney.
I think that the two leaders should see who has benefited the region in the Military area and then decide. It is their ultimate decision so let them do it.
I had a nightmare. It was a constant filling of government forms. The dream was filling out one long form, no matter what the day-to-day activity. On the plane? Fill out rows 135-321 and designate the purpose of your travels. Make any money? Fill out form B7 and designate all sources. It's the worst nightmare I've ever had, because the monotony could not be escaped. This went on for a very long time, row by row. Would much rather wake up in night terrors to a sudden ending. Socialism. Yuck.
I would have rather been tortured by Stalin himself (at least I could spit on him)!
That's just plain big government. All big statism, including socialism, is wrong. Bureaucratic Nonsense.
Also known as Bullsh!t.
Debunked by Penn & Teller.
Hopefully.
So.. Leaders (WA and Founder) will you please tell us your opinions on the military office?
I believe NST said he wanted to drop out of the running for it and become Vice Delegate. (For that, he needs your endorsements.)
If Einsiev is still active, it should probably be given to him...but if he isn't, Liberosia and Snabagag might have to find someone else.
I said I'd agree to either position. I think military affairs are more of my thing though.
I don't know. I think the military needs to commanded by one person.
That's a very good point. Even though I'm Internal Affairs Manager I do get involved in military affairs.
Yes, but your jobs does involve suggesting people for the job and "moderating" in moderation, the stuff that goes on here.
I will decide soon who will be the new manager of military affairs. Patience, my friends, patience.
Ok, can we get a time estimate like maybe 1-2 days?
He'll have an answer when he has an answer. Unless it's something crucial for you, we probably will survive without an ETA. *shrugs*
Ok. I have a feeling you don't like me at all or we can be good friends. I guess it is yet to be determined. :)
Huh? I don't mind anyone in this region, including you. I wasn't trying to sound harsh; I just think a bit of patience would be fine.
Calm down. We're fine. Nothing is urgent. I can raid other regions for Libertatem without being manager.
That's the spirit. :)
I endorse NST for vice WA Delegate and recommend WA member endorse him.
Thank you. I'll do what I can to help, and possibly post my views of politics once a day or so.
Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly does one "raid"?
It involves taking the WA. Look it up on the FAQ.
I will endorse you also friend.
So NST I have a question. Are you currently raiding?
I can not speak of any current operation on the RMB. Remember the RMB is public to all non-Libertatem members.
I have officially given up on the NS issues. They are ridiculous, and the choices are outrageous. Most of them involve the government, which I don't want them to do.
Yeah, hear you. I dismiss about 4 of 5 of them. It's incredibly hard to build an effective government when most options are to expand some part of the government as opposed to scaling back or guaranteeing rights.
Well they are good until you reach 1 bill populace because by then your country should have everything set up how you want it.
So.... now what?
I agree with the issues part. Most of them just get dismissed knowing that the government expending options are favorable and the libertarian take is mistranslated to extremism.
Post self-deleted by Miencraft.
"There is no government in the normal sense of the word"
A bit extreme, but I'll take it.
Just noticed I got it that far, too.
So.... has everyone here taken an advanced quiz stating the political beliefs? If there is a really good complex one someone found please post a link. I have found few but I always am looking for good sites.
@Confederate-
politicalcompass.org is the best. Very detailed. I scored a 9.50 Eco. and -6.50 on Social.
@Towlensk
The best "libertarian" categories are "capitalizt" and "civil rights lovefest".
Everyone, I've been confirmed as a Catholic. I'm happy and proud to truly be a part of my faith.
God bless you.
Thanks a bunch.
Thanks a bunch.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.51
I really don't know what these numbers mean.
Economic Left/Right: 6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Damn, I'm right next to Friedman. Nice.
I am yet to be confirmed as an Episcopalian.
@Towlensk LOL
I would like to announce that I oppose totalitarianism of any kind. Fascism, communism, democratic socialism, compulsory consumerism, and other forms of authoritarianism infringe upon the rights of the individual, bring death and destruction, and ultimately don't work.
America's capitalist system, however, does work, and it can work even better without any government involvement. I encourage libertarianism of all forms (except anarchism - it is easy for an authoritarian regime to take power in an anarchy), and hope that the youth of today understand the merits of conservative idealism and realism.
@Towlensk
Economics and Social Positions are ranged on numbers. Positive is conservative and negative is liberal. So a Republican would have about 4.00, 4.00.
A Dem would have about 0, -3.00.
As for me, I'm a libertarian, with anarchist tendencies. I scored a 9.50 economic, meaning far-right (no regulation besides minimum wage) and -6.50 on Social law, meaning I don't give a rat's @$$ what you do unless you hurt me or violate someone's rights.
I stood tall when my principles weren't popular here, I stood strong and did not let go of my disgust for fascism and ANY totalitarianism at all. I am glad that you all have come to the same conclusion as I. Justice has come.
@Conservative Idealism:
A bunch of gun-toting civilians will defend their anarchy from authority, providing everyone is devoted to true freedom. Anyway, Dem. Socialism isn't totalitarianism, but I get the point. Totalitarian's economics. And Anarchy /=/ Libertarianism. Here are the four ranges of state size: Anarchy, Libertarian, Authoritarian and Totalitarian. America is currently at authoritarian.
For all of those Christians out there: Who is the only just authority? We must render to Caesar what is Caesar's, nothing more. Your labors are not Caesar's. This is why taxation is indeed theft. If it wasn't, I would be able to directly decide as a individual where it went. But the state never says where it REALLY goes. So render to Caesar what is his: just about nothing.
Economic Left/Right: 3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38
Well, it's in the bottom-right. That's good enough.
Minimum wage=price controls
Here's my view on it: If we don't give the workers something they will form unions and rebel. My minimum wage would be like, um, $4.00. In a perfect world, they'd be gold currency. That's my one acception. Other than a low minimum wage as compromise with the leftists, I am probably farther right wing than 90% of people in the world.
No, a system that depends solely on human nature will fail (hence why there has never been true communism and never will be). The people need a protector from the criminals, and that's all a government should be; nothing more.
I say no more minimum wage, no more anti-trust laws, no more public schools, government assistance or social welfare. The government must never overstep its boundaries.
Despite being a die-hard capitalist, I actually anti-trust laws conceptually. When you think about it, big business loves big government. I realize this will not be a popular statement here.
"Here's my view on it: If we don't give the workers something they will form unions and rebel. My minimum wage would be like, um, $4.00. In a perfect world, they'd be gold currency. That's my one acception. Other than a low minimum wage as compromise with the leftists, I am probably farther right wing than 90% of people in the world."
89.99999% for me
Maybe so, TGM, but many of these laws also put small businesses in chokeholds. Considering the concept, that's not how it's intended to work, but can you really trust the government to do much of anything right?
First off, I would like to remind all WA members within the region to endorse our Delegate [nation=short]Snabagag[/nation], if possible, and also endorse any WA nations they see fit.
Second off, I would like to congratulate our two Vice WA Delegates on attaining their first endorsements: Congrats, [nation=short]The New Sea Territory[/nation] and [nation=short]Confederate People of the United States[/nation].
Basic economics. Price controls cause shortages, in this case a shortage of employment.
Hey, call me a jobs man.
In some fields it simply isn't practical to pay at minimum wage, let alone above - especially if it involves unskilled labor. We need more people with skills out there.
NST, under my society, we'd be giving the workers jobs.
I agree with The Capitalistic Minarchists of Conservative Idealism. Government's role should be only justice and defense.
I guess you don't need any goverment at all!
I would never under any circumstance accept minimum wage. Minimum wage is what unions use to keep skilled workers out of work, and it can increase inflation.
No, we need a government to protect people from crime (for instance, if someone breaks a contract or someone's face) or invasion of other countries. That's it, though - just justice and defense.
True
So you agree with objectivism: the only true governing institutions necessary are military, police, courts and legislature?
HAH! All three of my puppets in the top 6 of most pro-market nations, and I in 11th seat. Nice.
Objectivist I am, politically.
The only reason I'd support a small minimum wage is to appease the workers, so they don't get angry. And only a LOW minimum wage.
A minimum wage low enough below the market price of labor is unneeded. A minimum wage above the market price of labor prices out jobs that pay lower than that minimum, thus creating unemployment. The unemployed blame the free market, thereby fueling the welfare state as they demand some for of substinence.
Random comment after observing a few forum posts. It's funny to see long winded posts from leftists who think they know anything about economics but then end up making little to no sense. Silly Leftists, they need to learn about stuff.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.