Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Pevvania wrote:Question for y'all.

If you were President with control of Congress and could pass 3 major policies each for economic, foreign and domestic policies (9 altogether), what would they be?

End the fed, everything else will fall in line

Nice ^

I say reeducate everyones music to pink floyd and it will all fall into place.

Foreign- normalise relation with Iran and Cuba

Leave Afghanistan

Recognize Kosovo

Economic- end sanctions of Cuba and Iran

Sign economic treaty with EU

Sanction North Korea

Domestic- make Housing and Urban Devolpement a non cabinet agency

Combine place Energy under Interior

Bolster the aid to Secondary schools in Usa.

Sanctioning North Korea is the same as sanctioning Cuba. People will continue to starve under the west and eastern embargos.

North Korea won't embrace capitalism unless further pressure is made. Cuba is changing to adopt a more free market and they should be rewarded.

Communal Militia wrote:Sanctioning North Korea is the same as sanctioning Cuba. People will continue to starve under the west and eastern embargos.

I agree America should trade with North Korea.

Like pressure has worked in the past. The U.S has put an embargo on Cuba since the revolution, effectively starving hundreds or more. If you are for killing more people just for a systematic change, then you need to reevaluate your belief system.

North Korea will not be changing anytime soon and I hope not.

So by thatyou mean mass killings, corrupt government, intentional starving of its own people, political imprisonment, class system, an education that teaches its citizens to hate the West, purges, military before its own people, threatening the west with nuclear war to show strength, mass abductions, shelling incocent South koreans and torpedoing a destryer in South Korean waters, several attempted assinations of South Korean leadership, drug smuggling and funding of terrorist groups, and the fact that the North Korean heirarchy lives in complete luxory on western goods while preaching the Juche BS to its long suffering people, whom the US and the world have offered help too, but chooses nuclear weapons over its own people.

Also North Korea rejects Communism in all forms in its constitution. Ammended 2009

Post by Communal Militia suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Northern Prussia suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Albenia suppressed by a moderator.

Wow you're still debating ? And let me guess no one change his mind ?

Communal Militia wrote:Like pressure has worked in the past. The U.S has put an embargo on Cuba since the revolution, effectively starving hundreds or more. If you are for killing more people just for a systematic change, then you need to reevaluate your belief system.

North Korea will not be changing anytime soon and I hope not.

What a sick brain...

I implore the people that have a sharp bias against the third world, go to a third world country and see the truth about what is happening to the planet and its people. It is a lot worse than what the media has you think and I hope that one day you all realize this.

I wouldn't say that. I've travelled a lot in central Africa during the last few years, and I expected to see extreme poverty everywhere, my head was full of " clichés " that the average white guy has about Black Africa and poverty, violence, horrible life conditions. In fact it was a surprise but these countries seemed to be much more developed that what our medias always say, I've especially been positively surprised by all these modern buildings in the center of Kigali, Rwanda, by the fast development of trade, businesses... But of course there is still extreme poverty, such as little villages lost in the wild, whre the children walk hours to full their jerrycans with brown uncleaned water, and where I was the first white they have ever seen, which leads to very weird situations. Wow that's enough of my life for today, sorry.

Interesting. So why do I consider yourself an adherent to a system that makes that standard of living acceptable?

because you constantly make a joke about it.

Pevvania wrote:Question for y'all.

If you were President with control of Congress and could pass 3 major policies each for economic, foreign and domestic policies (9 altogether), what would they be?

Increase the age pass of SS and Medicare to 70

reduce income and Corporate taxes to a flat 10%

end all harmful regulations.

Give Gay Partnerships the same rights as a marriage

legalize and tax Cannabis

End all infringements on the Constitution.

Open trade with Cuba

end all CIA war making harassment

end all spying on allies of the United States

because you constantly make a joke about it.

that was my response to Anakha after his latest joke on me. sorry that that got in their.

The Amarican Empire wrote:

legalize and tax Cannabis

Ya done did messed it up

We tax tabbaco why not Cannabis. Plus i don't think raising the age of SS and Medicare coverage would balance the budget. A tax of cannabis would help the budget.

The Amarican Empire wrote:A tax... would help .

See here is the issue

We are not a primitive people. we need some organizer aka Government. The Population of the United States is too large for Anarchy.

Post self-deleted by Communal Militia.

The Amarican Empire wrote:We are not a primitive people. we need some organizer aka Government. The Population of the United States is too large for Anarchy.

Don't worry kid, we've all been there at some point. We'll get ya through this, it'll be ok. The first step is admitting you have a problem, namely: the state.

legalize and tax Cannabis

It would make the U.S government about $30 billion a year and save them about $9 billion a year.

Total annual budget increase as a result of the legalization and taxation of it: almost $40 billion a year.

End all infringements on the Constitution

This is a document written over 200 years ago and you want to decrease the amount of changes made on it? I think of that as a bit irrational.

Increase the age pass of SS and Medicare to 70

reduce income and Corporate taxes to a flat 10%

Flat income taxes does nothing for wealth inequality as worldwide rates increase. Also, retired people that no longer can provide for themselves and are not 70 years of age, are in need of those programs. Your grandparents wouldn't be too happy if they were suddenly exempt from those services.

end all spying on allies of the United States

Like we will truly end it all. We've done it longer than you would think and it I am sorry to say that the U.S won't ever stop because we are imperialist in nature.

Give Gay Partnerships the same rights as a marriage

...Or just give them marriage? Why make them an outlier in society? We deserve equal rights and titles as any.

Lack There Of wrote:Don't worry kid, we've all been there at some point. We'll get ya through this, it'll be ok. The first step is admitting you have a problem, namely: the state.

The fact of the matter is, get rid of the government and see what the American people do once that sudden initiation occurs. I'll sit back with some popcorn as America tries to come up with a solution... which would be to instate another government lol

From a Communist I would not think you would understand what freedom is. I am not going to listen to your arguments. You yourself have acted like and have been called a Dictator in the past.

The Amarican Empire wrote:From a Communist I would not think you would understand what freedom is. I am not going to listen to your arguments. You yourself have acted like and have been called a Dictator in the past.

A strong argument you pose. I have been defeated.

*collapses*

But in all seriousness... it wouldn't hurt to debate from your own perspective.

Communal being equal in wealth is not the same as being free. Everyone is an individual and so it is in human nature that some have more Ambition and some are more willing to go after their dreams.

Communal Militia wrote:The fact of the matter is, get rid of the government and see what the American people do once that sudden initiation occurs. I'll sit back with some popcorn as America tries to come up with a solution... which would be to instate another government lol

And that's kind of where I'm at. The absolutists clearly have the moral and reason high grounds, while the gradualists may have a more realistic approach to the problem (not that we'll likely see an end to the state in our life times regardless)

The Amarican Empire wrote:Communal being equal in wealth is not the same as being free. Everyone is an individual and so it is in human nature that some have more Ambition and some are more willing to go after their dreams.

What does this even have to do with the topic of debate? In any event, it does mean more purchasing power for the middle class, which means more freedoms to buy what you want, thus stimulating the economy.

Also, the only reason why the west is so heavily individualist is because we tell them to be and treat them to be. Its just our system telling them what human nature is and what it isn't. They tell you it is not human to share and they tell you it's okay to be greedy because its human nature. Evidently, this is just used to protect the elitist classes from the people realizing that it isn't actually human nature at all to begin with.

Then let's just say it is human nature. Do we act on our nature? Does a civilized man pounce on a women he sees and finds attractive. No. Therefore, we can conclude that humans can and most of the time don't act on them. Or if we see someone that we find very ugly and vile and we think that we want them dead out of human nature. Do we actually get a gun and shoot them dead? No.

My point is that humans don't have to act on their nature, even though the system tells you it is okay to act on some of them, albeit the ones that encourages greediness.

Furthermore, I fail to understand how a true communist could hate anarchism. Correct me if I am mistaken, because I very well could be, but did Marx not loath the state every bit as much as Rothbard, albeit for drastically different reasons. Why must we needlessly hate on one another when we share a clear and common foe to rag on.

Communal Militia wrote:Or if we see someone that we find very ugly and vile and we think that we want them dead out of human nature. Do we actually get a gun and shoot them dead?

And this has been "my inner darkness" with communal militia. Be sure to tune in next week when we go over communal's traumatic childhood

Lack There Of wrote:Furthermore, I fail to understand how a true communist could hate anarchism. Correct me if I am mistaken, because I very well could be, but did Marx not loath the state every bit as much as Rothbard, albeit for drastically different reasons. Why must we needlessly hate on one another when we share a clear and common foe to rag on.

Marx did hate the bourgeois-democratic state and similar ones. However, if you look into his theoretical notions, he suggested that society progresses through stages of development based on the socio-economic situations, certain economic advancements need to be made to progress to the next stages of society, with communism being the end goal. There are many steps needed to provide the foundation for such a society, and we need to also analyze and predict economic outcomes that follow historical trends.

We need a society to facilitate that of a pure communist society. We first need to create a society that encourages and executes collective behaviour, a government devoted to public welfare and ownership, and a society that strives to get rid of class antagonisms. These steps are merely the first few on the road to societal development, but these steps are also some of the most important.

I also feel that people who define themselves as "pure communists" or "anarcho-Communists" are lost in the sense that such a society is unreachable if done as the way they propose. Such systems they progress are set up to fail because there is no respective foundation laid to begin with. If you examine historical events, all past anarcho-communist countries have fallen by either internal or external situation. These people are called "Utopian Socialists". Which are people with communist ideas, but have a lost and arrogant approach in the means of achieving it. I define myself as a "Scientific Socialist" which societal development is upheld in a empirical standard, which understands and predicts social, economic, and material phenomena by examining their historical trends through the use of the scientific method in order to derive probable outcomes and probable future developments.

A lot of words, I know but I felt I needed to lay out some things misconstrued by some.

Didn't that feel good, as opposed to having a philosophical pissing match. For what it's worth what you've outlined here would be under the same umbrella of a gradualist approach for capitalists. As for myself, I am beginning to see the light in this approach, and between you and me (and anyone else who reads this sh*t soup of a RMB) I recently registered to vote after a long inner struggle.

I too was stuck on that "idealist phase" for lack of a better term, and really couldn't see the most effective way to bring about change within the governing apparatus. That's something both sides here can really work on, the ability to acknowledge that lasting change has to come from the system already in place. It's intellectually irresponsible for either side to just sit and wait for the huddled masses to just "wake up " and demand change.

We're not so different after all , except regarding literally anything else

Lack There Of wrote:Didn't that feel good, as opposed to having a philosophical pissing match. For what it's worth what you've outlined here would be under the same umbrella of a gradualist approach for capitalists. As for myself, I am beginning to see the light in this approach, and between you and me (and anyone else who reads this sh*t soup of a RMB) I recently registered to vote after a long inner struggle.

I too was stuck on that "idealist phase" for lack of a better term, and really couldn't see the most effective way to bring about change within the governing apparatus. That's something both sides here can really work on, the ability to acknowledge that lasting change has to come from the system already in place. It's intellectually irresponsible for either side to just sit and wait for the huddled masses to just "wake up " and demand change.

I have never called for such irresponsibility of people wanting to change the system. I think there is plenty of better ways to get change, revolution being the most effect. I am not a reformist in terms of modern capitalist society, so I do not believe in gradualism in that sense. I do, however, believe in an advanced form of gradualism from a socialist perspective.

Close enough, we 'll call it a night and hammer out the details mañana

Alright. I'll make the final note and say that you are a good contributor to discussions :)

I suggest this as the next video of the day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zFcIx30Pic&index=19&list=FLE3XWn5sAKNei_44nY6XRJA

I'm leaving for Scout CAmp and won't be back for a week so TG me anything interesting.

Albenia wrote:I'm leaving for Scout CAmp and won't be back for a week so TG me anything interesting.

You heard him folks. Telegram him "anything interesting".

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=muh_roads/detail=factbook/id=269587

Ready to vote on this thing?

Muh Roads wrote:http://www.nationstates.net/nation=muh_roads/detail=factbook/id=269587

Ready to vote on this thing?

Two things:

1. Court of Appeal

2. You should include the power of the Attorney General at the direction of the President to amend Acts pertaining to the legal system, and create new statutes. Basically an expansion of the Department of Justice to fill the gaps in the law. I suggest that these would be able to be repealed by the Board.

Ankha wrote:Hi.

Hello. How are you today?

Pevvania wrote:You should include the power of the Attorney General at the direction of the President to amend Acts pertaining to the legal system, and create new statutes. Basically an expansion of the Department of Justice to fill the gaps in the law. I suggest that these would be able to be repealed by the Board.

Fixed appeal.

I can include that, but it would seem to me that suggestion should be a whole new act entirely.

Muh Roads wrote:Fixed appeal.

I can include that, but it would seem to me that suggestion should be a whole new act entirely.

Yeah, I think that'd require a different law.

I mean, I agree with having a court of appeals.. buy giving the attorney general that much more control is a bit bothersome. Especially since he is appointed by the president/founder what have you.

Pevvania wrote:Yeah, I think that'd require a different law.

Sorry, posted before seeing this :p

Muh Roads wrote:I mean, I agree with having a court of appeals.. buy giving the attorney general that much more control is a bit bothersome. Especially since he is appointed by the president/founder what have you.

Expanding the power of the DoJ would only be for convenience. It takes several hours to write a law and see it passed, and it's extremely frustrating to have to correct a law that has an error in it. It'd be much easier for the DoJ to pass a statute and allow the Board to repeal it.

Any other suggestions/comments/feedback anyone?

Pevvania wrote:Expanding the power of the DoJ would only be for convenience. It takes several hours to write a law and see it passed, and it's extremely frustrating to have to correct a law that has an error in it. It'd be much easier for the DoJ to pass a statute and allow the Board to repeal it.

I see your point. I'll need some time to form an opinion on the matter.

This "post Keynesian" guy says that inflation is good. Why is it good? Why should we be spending a lot of money (that we don't have?)

So, who else here is a fan of calzones?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:This "post Keynesian" guy says that inflation is good. Why is it good? Why should we be spending a lot of money (that we don't have?)

Inflation is good for a Keynesian because nobody notices how much it hurts the poor and benefits the rich (it's essentially "trickle-up" economics), so they can steal beat the ol' dead horse to all the uninformed people about how the market is to blame for higher consumer prices.

My response to the silly 'debt is good' thread:

"First of all, there was no boom in World War II. That came afterwards. If that was a boom, then spending $5 trillion to pay everyone to dig holes and fill them back up again constitutes a boom - after all, that would equate to full employment and high GDP. It wouldn't change rationing, declining living standards, reduction in private investment and consumption and general stagnation of the private sector.

And secondly, paying off the national debt is important so we do not have to pay the increasingly heavy interest payments on it. When we do that, put simply there'll be less capital being taken from the private sector and as a result we'd have a more prosperous economy. Regardless, the national debt will have to be paid off eventually, because the near-0% interest rates right now will inevitably sky-rocket, meaning that paying off interest is near impossible and a huge economic crisis would occur. This is the situation that the UK will soon face, but debt crises are nothing new. Argentina's enormous national debt took it down from an economic giant to an underdeveloped nation in the span of a few short years.

Debt is bad."

Decided to move cause the robot is awesome

Viritica wrote:Decided to move cause the robot is awesome

Hi there, Viritica! My name's Pevvania, also known as [nation=short]Lerodan Chinamerica[/nation].

Muh Roads wrote:You heard him folks. Telegram him "anything interesting".

*rubs hands*

Pevvania wrote:Hello. How are you today?

Good, but tired. Also, we can put this into our anti-communist argument. Today I have been working in a garden for 6 hours for free at a neighbors. Im not doing that for free for my government Ever. How are you?

Pevvania wrote:Hi there, Viritica! My name's Pevvania, also known as [nation=short]Lerodan Chinamerica[/nation].

Ah, hello. Didn't know you had two nations.

Viritica wrote:Ah, hello. Didn't know you had two nations.

LC is my forum nation, while this is my gameplay one.

Ankha wrote:*rubs hands*Good, but tired. Also, we can put this into our anti-communist argument. Today I have been working in a garden for 6 hours for free at a neighbors. Im not doing that for free for my government Ever. How are you?

I despise gifting my labour to others, especially when I'm compelled to by social factors. When I worked as a babysitter, my client and her children once came over to my parents' house when I was staying over theirs, as my mother was friends with her. My brother and I had to look after the kids for six hours without pay. It really was hell.

And if I may ask, what has compelled you to move away from communism? If you don't mind me saying, I find it quite strange.

Pevvania wrote:I despise gifting my labour to others, especially when I'm compelled to by social factors. When I worked as a babysitter, my client and her children once came over to my parents' house when I was staying over theirs, as my mother was friends with her. My brother and I had to look after the kids for six hours without pay. It really was hell.

And if I may ask, what has compelled you to move away from communism? If you don't mind me saying, I find it quite strange.

The fact that I got my business of the ground and saw how ridiculous it is to own a business that I put my heart intro and be communist.

Viritica wrote:Ah, hello. Didn't know you had two nations.

So, I guess you're some sort of conservative?

Same. Minerva is my Gameplay/facts/roleplay nation while The Liberated Territories is my General nation.

I use [nation=short]The New United States[/nation] for both gameplay and roleplay, and [nation=short]The Islamic State of Randlia[/nation] for roleplay. I have several less important nations for roleplay and gameplay, as well.

On an unrelated note, America is playing Ghana, go Merica

The New United States wrote:I use [nation=short]The New United States[/nation] for both gameplay and roleplay, and [nation=short]The Islamic State of Randlia[/nation] for roleplay. I have several less important nations for roleplay and gameplay, as well.

I use [nation=ankha] for gameplay and roleplay and I use [nation=the untamed sun] to look awesome and get my anger out. :)

Right-Winged Nation wrote:On an unrelated note, America is playing Ghana, go Merica

Go Merca. (NAME BUTCHER)

Ah a quiet forum without any commie. Nice.

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:Ah a quiet forum without any commie. Nice.

What was that?

Hi, i still here! DEUTSCHLAND 4 PORTUGAL 0 , DEUTSCHLAND 4 GHANA 0 , DEUTSCHLAND 7 UNITED STATES 0 ---- DEUTSCHLAND!!!!!!!!!

Bilsa wrote:Hi, i still here! DEUTSCHLAND 4 PORTUGAL 0 , DEUTSCHLAND 4 GHANA 0 , DEUTSCHLAND 7 UNITED STATES 0 ---- DEUTSCHLAND!!!!!!!!!

YOU VILL BE VHIPPED!

Bilsa wrote:Hi, i still here! DEUTSCHLAND 4 PORTUGAL 0 , DEUTSCHLAND 4 GHANA 0 , DEUTSCHLAND 7 UNITED STATES 0 ---- DEUTSCHLAND!!!!!!!!!

Everyone thought Portugal was going to win and I was like hell no. Germany is pretty awesome. I think your predicted scores are a bit high though...

Bilsa wrote:Hi, i still here! DEUTSCHLAND 4 PORTUGAL 0 , DEUTSCHLAND 4 GHANA 0 , DEUTSCHLAND 7 UNITED STATES 0 ---- DEUTSCHLAND!!!!!!!!!

Germany is great, but please don't give off the impression that their still nationalist. You make us Germanic people look bad.

Post self-deleted by Republic Of Minerva.

There is nothing wrong with Nationalism.

Having blind pride just because you were born in a country is ignorant and makes the rest of country look ignorant.

Its good to have pride in your nation. You want to see your nation do well. I bet that every Communist nation has been Nationalist.

Tis called tribalism, the most ancient of beasts that which reside's in man's psyche; it has dominated social actions for the last hundred millennium, there is no escaping it. Racism. Bigotry. Sexism. Ideological hubris. Whatever you call it, whatever form it takes place, it seeks to destroy us by divide and conquer. It is the stuff that makes cults, and radicalizes them. Nationalism is just a form of tribalism, you see.

I have gotten so Nationalist that once one of my former Fascist friends almost converted me.

They had no other choice to be nationalist. They were surrounded by the capitalists and could only work by promoting local growth. This is how ideas like Juche are formed.

Wanting your own nation to grow is not nationalism. Nationalism is when you view all other countries as inferior to your own.

nationalism

na·tion·al·ism

[nash-uh-nl-iz-uhm, nash-nuh-liz-] Show IPA

noun

1.

spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation.

2.

devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism.

3.

excessive patriotism; chauvinism.

4.

the desire for national advancement or political independence.

5.

the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

I'm not very nationalistic.

I'm a patriot in the sense that my devotion is to America's people, but I will never bow to its government.

Its Nationalism not Governmentism. A Government does not make a nation. the people do. So CI you would be a Nationalist.

I think a nationalist party would fair well in the US.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Its Nationalism not Governmentism. A Government does not make a nation. the people do. So CI you would be a Nationalist.

Not really a fan of the nation either, except for the fact that it is ideally the land of the free and home of the brave, not to mention the crown jewel of ambition (see "American dream"). Again, it's the individuals I care about more than the structure, so I wouldn't be a nationalist.

Northern Prussia wrote:I think a nationalist party would fair well in the US.

We have two - Republicans and Democrats.

Patriotism is when you are proud to live in your country and nationalism is when you are not only proud, but believe your nation is better than the rest.

Communal Militia wrote:Patriotism is when you are proud to live in your country and nationalism is when you are not only proud, but believe your nation is better than the rest.

So i am both and you are neither?

Communal Militia wrote:Having blind pride just because you were born in a country is ignorant and makes the rest of country look ignorant.

We Americans would beg to differ, but I agree

Communal Militia wrote:They had no other choice to be nationalist. They were surrounded by the capitalists and could only work by promoting local growth. This is how ideas like Juche are formed.

Wanting your own nation to grow is not nationalism. Nationalism is when you view all other countries as inferior to your own.

No they became nationalist because: If you had nothing, if you were starving and begging for food and a job, and then someone came along and offered you food and a job, wouldn't you go with them? Other than the racism(obviously) Hitler was a genius.

Posting again: nation=muh_roads/detail=factbook/id=269587

comments? suggestions?

America is special and distinctive, but not for reasons the chauvinists would have "dem dirty for'ners" believe.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I'm not very nationalistic.

I'm a patriot in the sense that my devotion is to America's people, but I will never bow to its government.

Same

I am a Nationalist. I will however wont ever be loyal to any Government.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:America is special and distinctive, but not for reasons the chauvinists would have "dem dirty for'ners" believe.

I wish the North wouldn't have even started the Civil War. Like, seriously. We would be so better off without states from Texas to Georgia. I would let them secede, no, I encourage them to secede.

American nationalism isn't like most other forms of nationalism because it doesn't champion a common culture or race (most of the time). I couldn't see much unifying factors in a Nationalist Party for Americans that is not already covered by the Republicans.

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