Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Considering that Libertatem's military is itself a joke, I wouldn't be surprised if he meant it seriously.
Your point? Are you trying to brag about "defending" that region?
...
[/sibirsky]
Ballotonia, a site admin, confirmed that you won on a glitch. NS thought The Monkey Brigades was in the jump point instead of THI, even though he clearly was in THI.
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=346376
Ok? Whatever that means...
Great. Now why don't you leave us alone, as we no longer raid.
I don't understand why they didn't change the delegate after finding out it was a glitch.
You clearly do raid. However bad and unprofessional your "raiding" may be, it's raiding nevertheless. Islamic Comintern, anyone?
Cool story. I believe you were asked to refrain from spamming on our RMB.
it's a really strange feeling to be in a region that doesn't do raiding/defending and end having war declared somehow. in fact i'm still not sure if we're at war and if so with who and why. it's all very confusing and it really interrupts my RMB shítposting schedule.
He didn't declare war, he urged a declaration of war. You see, Libertatem employs these radical new things called laws which prevent such declarations on RMBs.
Miencraft
Yea, no I wasn't spamming. What your friends in New Republica did earlier today, that's what you call spamming.
Post self-deleted by Alyakia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SimMH3Q6zLw
News to me. Hey, [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation]! You hear this? You guys don't raid anymore, apparently.
You've long been committed to not raiding. What has it been, 36 hours?
That's actually pretty badass! :)
6 months.
Nope:
Tidal energy is the future of the energy industry.
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/hydro/tidal-power/
Kings Island
Interesting information. Alternative energy can only be fully pursued in a socialist, state-owned industry, though.
Interesting... I'm still hoping cold fusion is developed. Or even efficient hot fusion.
Fusion is still many years away, unfortunately.
Fission, on the other hand, is much more viable.
Wrong answer
Unfortunately. I'm all for fission but, once fusion is developed, it'll quickly become obsolete.
We can hope.
What is your opinion on solar? I am looking forward to it's individual production, where we won't have to rely on the state or any corporation for our power.
i'm partial to the sun, partly because if it stops being viable we have bigger problems and partly due to my own feelings. i mean, if you're gonna worship something, why not worship the sun?
it's petty unlikely that a private for-profit organization would dump billions into new technologies that may not work, may not make a profit for decades (they are bad at long term planning, ironically enough) even if someone else doesn't just wait for them to research then be the ones making the profit and might actually cut into their other forms of revenue if they're already an energy company. also renationalize all the power.
Wealthy backers have dumped money into inane projects, like the colonization of Mars, before. It's not impossible.
That would definitely be nice, and once demand becomes high enough it will surely become the cheapest option.
Though I'm actually a rather moderate libertarian, mostly because of my staunch support of public education (which I view to be an essential part of equality of opportunity).
I also support limited environmental regulation as I view pollution to be an act of aggression due to it'so negative health effects.
Like Jefferson?
That's alright. You should read CATO articles. They would jibe well with moderates.
That's not necessarily true. Plenty of private individuals buy solar panels to power their homes, and plenty of private companies build hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, and nuclear plants already.
So long as an environment-conscious market exists, business people will invent and profit from alternate energy sources.
Eh, in regards to education, perhaps. I'd say, really, that my favorite president was William McKinley.
I'm a regular reader of CATO and Reason.
there is a big difference between personal solar panels and a solar power plant. don't they get subsidized to build those? and i think nuclear power research was a state thing.
this is the best option. it's also kind of unreliable. mars one was like £bn. 1 nuclear power plant is apparently like £25 billion. we can't rely on maybe some rich guy will pick it up as his vanity project.
The key is then, education. As long as we have public education, it would be better and have greater return if we switched to say, Finland's model. Finland gives parents a lot of choice in their child's education, something that is missing over here.
details?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/is-finland-a-choice-less-education-miracle/
Midnight, I'm going to bed.
Same.
it's 5am tho
I'm still up.
Does anyone else play Skyrim?
Nope
Shame - it's fun.
I have actually never even held a box with the game in it.
I've held three.
I bought Skyrim for PS3 before any of the DLC came out. My brother wanted it for Xbox 360 instead, so a few months later, we sold it and bought the Xbox 360 version, and eventually bought all the DLC for it as it came out.
Then I bought the PS3 Legendary Edition some time later.
(I no longer have my Xbox 360 or any of the games for it, but I do have the PC version of Skyrim with all DLC - so I can say I've played the full game on all consoles.)
I do occasionally. Beat every storyline in it so there's really not much else to do but random sidequests, and maybe make another five characters just to run through the Civil War another five times.
Been running around in Morrowind a bit lately in preparation for purchasing Online when it goes on sale on Steam.
Also been spending a lot of time playing Dark Souls, which is definitely not Skyrim.
With the right mods, Skyrim can feel a bit like Dark Souls.
In fact, with the right mods, Skyrim can be anything you want it to be.
Miencraft
Uh yeah
*stares at* I will watch you now... sneaky nation!
It is not as cost effective though.
Post self-deleted by Pangaean Brigade.
Post self-deleted by Pangaean Brigade.
No, most wealthy people nowadays have their wealth handed down to them from their parents.
Except when it doesn't, capitalism can have an opposite correlation with democracy, aka communes and anarcho-communism.
Except you ignored the slave trade and child labour....
Why does it not surprise me no one has challenged me on these points in this region yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5rVD_TXrjo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI6a7WySFsU
Maybe some of you should follow the example of this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/xaxie1
There is always laser fusion! (hot fusion)
(Uses lasers to heat up the hydrogen)
Your source only talks about peoples opinions and from my conclusion the person that made that 'the fantasy of democratic socialism' and have clearly never even heard of libertarian socialism let alone know anything about it.
This has as much ground as the mud pie argument.
This is where I doubt you evidence, that is the 14th century and it was against feudalism, it does not seem that relevant.
Is nature in some way cheating them the full value of their work?
Ahhh a strawman, how intellectually honest of you.
(sarcasm)
Considering North Korea is one of the two de facto communist nations today (the other being Cuba), not really.
I play a lot of Civ 5
Like, way too much Civ 5
Please help
I play a lot of Napoleon: Total War.
No, it's kinda gotten to the point where it's just a dictatorship, from what I've heard.
I'm almost certain that communism is basically just a better word for horrible, slave driving dictatorship, actually.
Kings Island
That's a lie. For the top 1% of American society, inherited wealth accounts for 15% of holdings. But inherited wealth makes up 43% of the wealth of the bottom fifth of American society, and 31% for the second wealth. Inheritance is vital for many families to escape poverty. Some people work and save all their lives to pass down to their children, only for much of it to be robbed from them by the state.
That's nice, but in this world nations that are more democratic tend to be more capitalist, and nations that are less democratic tend to be less capitalist. "Anarcho"-communism is based on direct democracy, as opposed to liberal democracy, so it's far more tyrannical. Under "anarcho"-communism, if a mob votes to steal your house, they can steal your house. If a mob votes to imprison you, they can imprison you. If a mob votes to kill you, they can kill you. Without legal and institutional safeguards of individual liberty - which aren't very effective anyway, but still - democracy is not a very nice system to live under.
There are a bunch of studies in the link that prove my point.
WTF are you talking about? The slave trade was ended during the Industrial Revolution. The slave trade was outlawed in 1807 in Britain and 1865 in the US. Slavery had been going on for centuries prior.
Child labour is far better than the alternative. In 1993, Senator Tom Harkin introduced a bill proposing to ban imports from countries that used child labour. In response, Bangladeshi textile factories stopped employing children - more than 50,000 kids were fired. Paul Krugman once said: "But did the children go back to school? Did they return to happy homes? Not according to Oxfam, which found that the displaced child workers ended up in even worse jobs, or on the streets - and that a significant number were forced into prostitution... The point is that third-world countries aren't poor because their export workers earn low wages; it's the other way around. Because the countries are poor, even what look to us like bad jobs at bad wages are almost always much better than the alternative."
So you want to end child labour in third world countries, which would deprive families of income and send poor kids into prostitution and poverty. Why do you hate poor kids so much?
Child labour has existed since the dawn of man. The Industrial Revolution actually enabled the elimination of child labour by increasing family incomes and making more than two income-earners per family unnecessary. Adults earned more and had fewer kids. In 1851, 36% of boys aged 10-14 were working. By 1911, that figure was worth 18%, and within two decades child labour had become a rarity. Capitalism improves living standards and makes child and sweatshop labour unnecessary. This is the process the western world underwent in the 19th Century, and it is what is happening now in developing countries.
Why do you assume we have to defend neo-conservative wars? That's the exact kind of imperialist, nation-building philosophy we fight against, both in real life and on NationStates.
This has already been rebuked: https://beingclassicallyliberal.liberty.me/rebuttal-to-top-ten-capitalist-arguments-debunked/
Or not. "Libertarian" socialism is an oxymoron.
What does that even mean? It demonstrates my point perfectly.
It's totally relevant, because it shows that a) capitalism was not created by the state, and b) capitalism arose as a reaction to the state. So from this we can assume that capitalism thrives best without a state.
Miencraft, Muh Roads, Hallo Island
450 un-read Board posts... Are those Commie B@stards trolling again? When will they realize that they lose? Capitalism and free market win wars. Boom. Literally.
Pevvania
Education has got to begin somewhere.
Yea. Unfortunately they are not great learners.
Hallo Island
So, The New United States has been absent from everything the board has done for a week or so. Even the chairman election.
Actually no, let me partially take that back - libertarian socialism can be legitimate, but only when it is non-coercive. This MouseProductions fellow seems to be fairly genuine.
I think TNUS has got finals on right now.
"Even V Ming has admitted before that fascism is a rogue strand of socialism (this is an undeniable fact - the original socialists were raging nationalists) that seeks an all-powerful state." - [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation]
Hey can we stop with the BS? I mean earlier this week you were claiming "numerous" victories against North Korea but there's no truth to this and now we're going to attriute false statements to me?
Fascism is nothing to do with socialism - socialism is about people's power, fascism is about power over the people.
Fascism claims to be anti-liberal; anti-conservative and anti-communist.
Fascism claims to be a �Third Way,� rejecting both capitalism and communism.
Fascism strives to establish a nationalist, authoritarian regime.
Fascism rejects the idea of class struggle, offering nationalism in its place. The idea of melding labor and management into a nationalist whole is variously termed, in fascist terminology, National Corporatism (the Corporate State), National Socialism, or National Syndicalism.
Fascism actively pursues imperialism and territorial expansion.
Fascism rejects reason and rationality, and embraces irrationalism and romanticism. As such, fascism makes extensive use of symbols, emblems, and uniforms.
Fascism encourages the total militarization of society and espouses a philosophy of �romantic violence.�
Fascism creates private paramilitary militias.
Fascism is extremely male supremacist, relegating women to subservient roles in society.
Fascism sees itself as a movement of the young, emphasizing energy, health, vitality and generational conflict.
Fascism promotes a charismatic, personalist, dictatorial style of leadership; with the leader worshipped as a god-like figure.
http://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/02/01/fascism-origins-and-ideology/
Educate yourselves and don't reference me.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/02/not-baking-a-wedding-cake-leads-to-13500
Don't bake a cake, get fined 135k.
Ridiculous.
You wrote an article for your region's newspaper a while ago in which you claimed that "fascism shadows socialism", or something to that effect. I can't find the particular quote because I can't access regional newspapers, but I'm sure you know what I'm referring to.
Stop lying. The Great North Korea and Dprk were the most notable victories, the former of which was founded by that 'Comrade Mark' guy. You managed to retake the latter region, but restoring a shattered community is more difficult than clicking the 'refound' button.
Both are about power over the people. The economic policies of fascist regimes were slightly different from those of communist regimes, but all in all their actions were difficult to distinguish.
So pretty much all the things commie regimes did, sans corporatism and anti-feminism.
what a reliable source
Pretty sure this is an ad hominem.
I am beginning to think Pevvania is intellectually dishonest....
Maybe you just took it out of context?
Or you are twisting her words.....
Sadly. And they tried to deny stalin murdered over 30 million people
Pevvania's plan for poisoning the well.
1.)Pangaea saya he doesn't like bad option 1 for children, assume he likes worse option 2
2.)?????
3.)PROFIT
The problem with your argument being that there is no option 3.
Before I read this, by any chance is:
https://beingclassicallyliberal.liberty.me/rebuttal-to-top-ten-capitalist-arguments-debunked/
similar to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKjUq_sRq3o
and if so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVS8p-_AjXk
You know what I am going to say though......
Redistribution of wealth.
So, essentially theft?
Pevvania
In the case of third world countries, what wealth is there to redistribute? Best case scenario, people who normally work for two pittances would be able to receive just one regardless of whether they work or not. The thing about redistributing wealth is that it needs to be generated first.
Miencraft
Over 30 Million?
That figure seems a bit inflated, I can understand why you came to 30 million, but there are other way to explain them apart from attribution EVERYTHING to Stalin.
Date Population
January 1897 (Russian Empire):125,640,000
1911 (Russian Empire): 167,003,000
January 1920 (Russian SFSR):137,727,000 (Take in mind the USSR had not fully taken every area that belonged to the Russian Empire)
January 1926 (USSR):148,656,000 (Still not taken every are belonged to Russian empire *aka Baltic States)
Regardless of whether he killed 30 million or ten million or even 3 million, the point is that he killed millions of people.
You don't just redistribute wealth within one country, otherwise what you say would be right.
(Over simplification here)
Is robin hood evil then?
The how about you uniformly agree to 30 million> as a figure, you don't look as foolish.
#nobodyisgoingtochangeanyoneelsesmindonthissoknockitoff
Vahdhazi
Lighten up, just trying to highlight a point.
Not at all. V Ming just has a tendency to exaggerate things.
I read the article, and you did not. I know what she was getting at, and so does she.
Ummm... okay then. My point was that child labour isn't some kind of an invention by capitalists, it arises as a result of social deprivation, and is the only option for millions of people.
You can't redistribute wealth if there's no wealth to redistribute.
I think modern communists misrepresent the arguments of Karl Marx. Marx was not, in the strict sense of the word, an anti-capitalist. Marx believed that capitalism was very useful for generating wealth and even relieving poverty, but was ineffective at equally distributing income, which is why he believed it had served its purpose and should be replaced by socialism.
Robin Hood did not "steal from the rich and give to the poor". This is a myth. The original tale of Robin Hood saw him taking back stolen money from wealthy bureaucrats that had been seized from poor people, and giving it back to said poor people.
Robin Hood was the original anti-tax crusader.
Miencraft, Kings Island
Can I get an AMEN?
Vahdhazi
AMEN
Vahdhazi
Look at my other recent post......
(Over simplification)
Communists see capitalists paying the worker less than the total value of his labour as theft, so really it is taking back what was yours.
NICE.
Ad hominem.
No. The original story had him stealing from the corrupt government (particularly the sheriff of Nottingham).
I'm inclined to agree with Pangean Brigade here.
That pev, would be an oxymoron, you cannot have a communist regime as that involves a state.
No pev, no.
So you want an international system of wealth redistribution? Pretty much what the west has been doing for the past seventy-odd years? Foreign aid is highly ineffective, and often ends up being harmful as corrupt politicians embezzle the money or misappropriate it. Often, it also ends up undercutting the third world economies that they're supposed to be helping. (Simple thought experiment: if you're a poor, hungry person living in Ethiopia, do you buy a bag of grain for $20, or do you take the free bags of grain being given out by the UN? Obviously the bags from the UN. Now what happens to the suppliers selling grain? They go out of business, putting more people in poverty and out of work and increasing the need for foreign aid.) As Ron Paul says, "Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries."
Why can't you just let markets work and bring people out of poverty like they're already doing? A great example of capitalism uplifting people in Africa is Botswana. Like its neighbour Zimbabwe, it became independent from the British in the 20th Century, but underwent a very different route. Zimbabwe adopted state planning, nationalising the economy and creating a one-party state, while effectively outlawing private business. Botswana liberalised trade, deregulated industry and kept taxes and spending low. It embraced free markets. As a result, it has flourished. Today it is one of the wealthiest, healthiest and most democratic states in Africa, while Zimbabwe is... well, Zimbabwe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7071wstBp1k
https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:BWA:NAM:ZAF&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:BWA:ZWE&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.