Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Do you guys support a free Tibet?

Yes.

Rateria

I plan to start a new political party based off of Ayn Rand's philosophy. We will the Objectivist Party. Information can be found on my nation's fact book.

Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:I plan to start a new political party based off of Ayn Rand's philosophy. We will the Objectivist Party. Information can be found on my nation's fact book.

No

>demand transparency from elected officials

>authoritarianism goes up

shint man my aether tabloids

Rateria

The States Of Balloon wrote:>demand transparency from elected officials

>authoritarianism goes up

shint man my aether tabloids

Could you clarify?

Rateria

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:Could you clarify?

I'm not sure how much clearer I could be. I forced my elected officials to increase transparency, and my authpoitarianism went up.

Rateria

The States Of Balloon wrote:I'm not sure how much clearer I could be. I forced my elected officials to increase transparency, and my authpoitarianism went up.

More transparency =/= less authoritarianism

Just means they're honest about the fact that they're a dictatorship.

Rateria

Miencraft wrote:More transparency =/= less authoritarianism

Just means they're honest about the fact that they're a dictatorship.

It doesn't equal more authoritarianism either

Rateria

The States Of Balloon wrote:It doesn't equal more authoritarianism either

It's Nationstates. Things that make sense to us normal folk are alien to this land.

Rateria

I have recently reviewed President Aradites' platform on his fact book. I greatly admire his stance on election reform, even if I disagree with his party's call for a dictator if his "god" returns(though his God seems to advocate for Objectivist ethics). However, I don't believe he takes his reform far enough. I encourage those interested in a more representative democracy to look at the legislation section in my fact book. With support, the Objectivists can actually decentralize and shrink government power rather than just saying they support it.

If I'm not mistaken, no where in the Constitution of the Second Republic does it say that you must be a citizen to run for a senator's position. Therefore, I announce my candidacy for senate as part of the Objectivist Party.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:If I'm not mistaken, no where in the Constitution of the Second Republic does it say that you must be a citizen to run for a senator's position. Therefore, I announce my candidacy for senate as part of the Objectivist Party.

No.

It says that citizens cannot be denied the right to run for office but does not specifically say that non-citizens cannot run for office. I suppose since the constitution doesn't protect me either, the government can prevent me from running, but I would like the chance to run. I also suggest you clarify the issue in a new amendment because I probably shouldn't be able to use a loophole like this at all.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:It says that citizens cannot be denied the right to run for office but does not specifically say that non-citizens cannot run for office. I suppose since the constitution doesn't protect me either, the government can prevent me from running, but I would like the chance to run. I also suggest you clarify the issue in a new amendment because I probably shouldn't be able to use a loophole like this at all.

If you are a citizen, then you cannot be denied the right to run for office.

If you cannot be denied the right to run for office, then you are a citizen.

If you are not a citizen, then you can be denied the right to run for office.

If you can be denied the right to run for office, then you are not a citizen.

The laws of logic disagree with you.

I'm not a citizen yet, and I can be denied the right to run for office. My question is, is the government now denying my candidacy for senate? They definitely have the right to. That's indisputable.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:I'm not a citizen yet, and I can be denied the right to run for office. My question is, is the government now denying my candidacy for senate? They definitely have the right to. That's indisputable.

You answered your own question. You are not a citizen, therefore, you cannot run for office. Period. It does not need to be clarified at all because the statement, inverse, converse, and contrapositive of the statement all affirm that you cannot run. The government doesn't decide who runs, the law does.

Although I should be able to run under the strictest interpretation of the constitution since it does not specifically say I can't even if I can be denied the right, since Meincraft is Regional Justice and says no I will take that as being denied. I concede.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:Although I should be able to run under the strictest interpretation of the constitution since it does not specifically say I can't even if I can be denied the right, since Meincraft is Regional Justice and says no I will take that as being denied. I concede.

In all fairness I don't think anyone anticipated anyone trying to run as a non-citizen since it should be fairly obvious that, since citizenship is already clearly defined as being required to vote, it'd hold that it's also required to run.

Nobody really thought to specify that you need to be a citizen to run because it was supposed to be obvious considering everything else about citizenship in there.

Thankfully, you found a self-sealing loophole, thanks to that little right citizens have that Venom mentioned. We'd be in some real trouble if it turned out that after two years non-citizens were actually able to run for office the whole time.

So, thanks I guess. You helped us make sure that was fairly airtight.

Rateria

Venomringo wrote:You answered your own question. You are not a citizen, therefore, you cannot run for office. Period. It does not need to be clarified at all because the statement, inverse, converse, and contrapositive of the statement all affirm that you cannot run. The government doesn't decide who runs, the law does.

this man really just dropped some geometry unit 2 lesson 3

Miencraft, Rateria, Venomringo

"Blue Wave" has become the "Blue Trickle"

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/389410-republicans-are-strongly-positioned-to-win-congress-in-november

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:"Blue Wave" has become the "Blue Trickle"

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/389410-republicans-are-strongly-positioned-to-win-congress-in-november

Could we stop winning? It's getting boring.

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

TNUS is back? I haven’t talked to you in a while! Welcome back!

The New United States

Rateria wrote:TNUS is back? I haven’t talked to you in a while! Welcome back!

Hey, thanks! Good to be back. :)

Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

waiting for all the "libertarian" trump supporters here to defend the tariffs

Zzzz

Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:waiting for all the "libertarian" trump supporters here to defend the tariffs

Zzzz

You'd be surprised, there's thankfully still a good amount of us that aren't just conservatives calling themselves libertarians.

Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:waiting for all the "libertarian" trump supporters here to defend the tariffs

Zzzz

When you say Trump supporter, do you mean anyone who voted for him or just die-hard supporters who will justify anything he does? I agree with about 60% of what Trump says. Does that make me a "Trump supporter?"

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:When you say Trump supporter, do you mean anyone who voted for him or just die-hard supporters who will justify anything he does? I agree with about 60% of what Trump says. Does that make me a "Trump supporter?"

Are you trying to say that you don't support the tariffs?

The Screaming Void wrote:Are you trying to say that you don't support the tariffs?

I was trying to ask what qualifies one as being a trump supporter, but no, I don't agree with the tariffs.

Rateria

Tarrifs are great. It allows the North to slowly push the South into poverty while making a sh(NS censored this word for being "super inappropriate" lol)it ton of money because they can now sell Northern goods for 10x the price of the foreign ones, and then, a few years later we can just duke it out over it and kick their ass because they are just super poor racists.

Highway Eight wrote:Tarrifs are great. It allows the North to slowly push the South into poverty while making a sh(NS censored this word for being "super inappropriate" lol)it ton of money because they can now sell Northern goods for 10x the price of the foreign ones, and then, a few years later we can just duke it out over it and kick their ass because they are just super poor racists.

The Civil War was fought over tarriffs? Missouri was the only Confederate State to explicitly say that slavery wasnt a causes for the secession.

You're forgetting the part where the South refuses to modernize in favor of using a human rights violating labor source because it was cheaper than actually paying people. This is why the tariffs hurt them. There was also no income tax, so tarriffs were the government's main way of raising money.

And also the part where the South gets pissy and pass laws that serve no purpose but to dehumanize slaves even more.

And also that part where the South fight a war with like ~3 total steelworks and realize their mistake.

And that part where the South had a lynching problem even into the 1950s the because they refused to crackdown on the practice.

It's easy to downplay the rampant racism and human rights violations of the South when you specifically exclude US History post civil war-1970s. I'm not saying the North was any less racist, because the attitude towards African-Americans was very similar, but there certainly was not the level of mass racism that was so prevelent in the South for so many years after the Civil War. If you want to get a picture of just how awful the situation in the South was for African-Americans even 100 years after the Civil War, I reccomend reading John Griffin's "Black Like Me".

Sweeping uncomfortable history under the rug is not solving any problems.

Miencraft, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania

Skaveria wrote:When you say Trump supporter, do you mean anyone who voted for him or just die-hard supporters who will justify anything he does? I agree with about 60% of what Trump says. Does that make me a "Trump supporter?"

latter mostly, although I've seen many people of the former persuasion move to the latter (i.e. Molyneux)

Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:latter mostly, although I've seen many people of the former persuasion move to the latter (i.e. Molyneux)

Well to be fair, a vote for Trump had a middle finger quality to it that lends itself to anti-establishement libertarians.

Skaveria wrote:Well to be fair, a vote for Trump had a middle finger quality to it that lends itself to anti-establishement libertarians.

I think you have a typo there, you accidentally typed "anti-establishment libertarians" instead of "idiots who just want to watch the world burn".

Last I heard there's a difference between the two, I might be wrong though.

Modern Day Generic Presidential Election

GENERAL ELECTION TIME-

Cast your vote today. > Vote Here

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=colorado-kansas/detail=factbook/id=1034618

Medicare trustees report says the program will be insolvent by 2026, 3 years earlier than previously estimated. Who's got the popcorn?

The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

Reposted from the page of Ariana Rowlands, President of the California College Republicans:

"California’s Primary Elections yesterday showed that there will be no blue wave for the Democrats in the 2018 elections. Democrat State Senator Newman was RECALLED and replaced with Republican Ling Ling Chang. Republican John Cox made it to the general election as a Republican candidate for governor. Most excitingly though, is that every incumbent GOP Congressional seat except 1* received 50+% of the vote in their contested primaries, some “targeted districts” going as high as earning 58-70% of the vote for the Republican. With hard work, our congressional candidates will only pick up percentages for the general. Republican voters across the state turned out in force yesterday to make a statement to the Democrats, and it’s heard loud and clear across the country- take your blue wave somewhere else because IT ISN’T HAPPENING HERE! #byebyenewman #bluetrickle"

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Reposted from the page of Ariana Rowlands, President of the California College Republicans:

"California’s Primary Elections yesterday showed that there will be no blue wave for the Democrats in the 2018 elections. Democrat State Senator Newman was RECALLED and replaced with Republican Ling Ling Chang. Republican John Cox made it to the general election as a Republican candidate for governor. Most excitingly though, is that every incumbent GOP Congressional seat except 1* received 50+% of the vote in their contested primaries, some “targeted districts” going as high as earning 58-70% of the vote for the Republican. With hard work, our congressional candidates will only pick up percentages for the general. Republican voters across the state turned out in force yesterday to make a statement to the Democrats, and it’s heard loud and clear across the country- take your blue wave somewhere else because IT ISN’T HAPPENING HERE! #byebyenewman #bluetrickle"

this is epic

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

The States Of Balloon wrote:this is epic

ebib*

Rateria

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/06/democrats-california-2018-primary-628602

Absurd article. Can essentially be summed up as "Democrats avoided disaster and made it onto the ballot in November in several House races, which means the #BlueWave is on track to succeed!"

No. Getting a Democrat on the ballot in California is not a special achievement. It would have been nice if we could've got two Republicans out of the primaries, but that's not the priority. It doesn't change the fact that voters backed targeted Republicans by comfortable, and in some cases huge, majorities; nor does it change the fact that in the heart of the 'resistance', turnout was low. And it doesn't change the fact that we've got a Republican on the gubernatorial ballot in November, which will drive up Republican turnout for down-ticket races.

The California primaries were a good day for Republicans, and an average at best day for Democrats.

Also, a little shameless self-promotion: you can thank me for helping to get rid of the Democratic supermajority in the California state legislature. I campaigned to recall state senator Josh Newman, who was the swing vote that voted to increase the gas tax. I was one of the top 5 canvassers last weekend. Voters responded 58-42 to recall, and replaced him with Ling Ling Chang, a Republican. And this is in a highly city-oriented suburban area that includes parts of LA and Orange County.

Huge win folks!

Rateria

One more post about the primaries.

1. Many Democratic House candidates ran to the left in order to avoid a lockout, which will make them much easier to attack in November and further increasing the likelihood they won't get their prized SoCal targets.

2. The gas tax is extremely unpopular in California, as shown by Josh Newman's successful recall. Polls show that strong majorities oppose it. All Republicans have to do to make gains in November is bash the gas tax and bash the sanctuary state, which is actually very unpopular in many parts of California.

3. Turnout from Republicans is usually high in midterm years and lower from Democrats, so that will aid us as well.

4. The Dem's strategy to beat Republicans in California this year is attack Trump and tie Republican candidates to Trump. I don't think it's going to work.

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Reposted from the page of Ariana Rowlands, President of the California College Republicans:

"California’s Primary Elections yesterday showed that there will be no blue wave for the Democrats in the 2018 elections. Democrat State Senator Newman was RECALLED and replaced with Republican Ling Ling Chang. Republican John Cox made it to the general election as a Republican candidate for governor. Most excitingly though, is that every incumbent GOP Congressional seat except 1* received 50+% of the vote in their contested primaries, some “targeted districts” going as high as earning 58-70% of the vote for the Republican. With hard work, our congressional candidates will only pick up percentages for the general. Republican voters across the state turned out in force yesterday to make a statement to the Democrats, and it’s heard loud and clear across the country- take your blue wave somewhere else because IT ISN’T HAPPENING HERE! #byebyenewman #bluetrickle"

Exciting! I lived in southern California for a good while and the current state of California always saddened me. Good news to hear!

Pevvania, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:ebib*

haha benis:DDDD

Pevvania, Rateria

Speak of the devil, I just came across an interesting National Review article about conservatism in California. Thought somebody might enjoy the read:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/california-and-conservatism/

The New United States wrote:Exciting! I lived in southern California for a good while and the current state of California always saddened me. Good news to hear!

Oh cool! Where exactly in SoCal?

The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Oh cool! Where exactly in SoCal?

I lived in Orange County until just recently. :)

Rateria

You dirty Californians will never feel the true glory of the bEAST coast.

Miencraft, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:You dirty Californians will never feel the true glory of the bEAST coast.

W R O N G

Who or what is responsible for your political awakening?

For me, the 2012 presidential election first got me seriously into politics. In terms of my ideology, reading Ronald Reagan's autobiography 'An American Life' shaped and defined my views and my attitude towards government. The contours of my exact beliefs have changed significantly over the last six years (conservative to libertarian to ancap to moderate libertarian to Trump-supporting libertarian-conservative Republican), but what has always been unshakeable is my conviction that we must reduce the size of government.

The New United States, Rateria

Why the fu€k we required to buy insurance

Pevvania, Rateria

The States Of Balloon wrote:Why the fu€k we required to buy insurance

obama

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Who or what is responsible for your political awakening?

I got pulled into politics by two things: 1) 2012 elections and 2) the Arab Spring. I started out caring mostly just about foreign policy, then my interest in politics and economics grew from there.

Started out as a moderate liberal and a foreign policy hawk, but thanks to an excellent professor and some independent research, I quickly moved to being a constitutionalist and libertarian.

I kept moving down the libertarian scale all the way to ancap, before bouncing back and eventually becoming a conservative, which I am today.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Who or what is responsible for your political awakening?

Well, my grandparents on my mother's side are hardcore liberal, not radical SJW types, they're too old for that, old school, Bush-hating, pro-pot, hippies. My conversations with them really politicized me because my grandparents on my dad's side, who I spent more time with, were real old-school, evangelical, stick in the muds. We'd have political conversations and I ended up agreeing with most of what they said. I was for legalization, redistribution of wealth, and all the classic Democrat opinions. They could never convince me to be anti-gun or pro-choice though. Those were my two hold-outs. Something about both of them has always seemed wrong to me. Well, fast forward to high school, I hung out with the rejects, the emos, the stoners, the nerds, metalheads and what have you. Ironically, half of these people would become the SJW types while the others went more right-wing. I kept my same opinions and they were reinforced by my friends. Then I joined Theatre, that's when the Liberalism turned into progressivism. My theatre teacher promoted Diversity club, which I promptly joined. I used to use words like "people of color" that was me trying to seem woke by the way, that's what those people use that phrase for, I just say black, white, or Hispanic and Asian now, you know, NORMAL WORDS. Anyways, I started to notice a trend. Only one opinion was being represented by my theatre teacher. The club members were constantly cracking white jokes and it made me uncomfortable. I can take a joke, but this was too much. That must've been late 2015 early 2016, then I discovered Milo Yianopolous and he put into words all the frustration I felt towards the snobbishness of these high school, virtue signalers. That's when I realized I WASN'T THAT, whatever the hell they are, I'm not. I still had my old liberal values, but the veil was lifted. I realized that the left wasn't where I was. I then watched a lot pf the YouTube skeptics, armored skeptic, Sargon, ect. Before moving on to Shapiro and Crowder. I disagreed with most of their social policy, but they made capitalism make sense. I had started down a bad path though. I caught myself looking at DailyStormer and listening to Richard Spencer. I never followed that path further thank god, because when I'd listen to them I knew something was wrong. It's like my very soul objected to them, but I still liked Milo, and I started to like the wall. I registered as an independent when I got my license. When it came time to vote, I pulled the lever for Trump. Almost as much just to spite all those fake people from high-school as much as anything he said that I liked. He was a personified middle-finger to all of those people who just don't get what it's like and yet still want to judge me. After the election I switched my party affiliation from independent to Libertarian. Never went full An-Cap because of the wall. Then I learned about minarchy and the night watchman state, and here I am. Pro-wall, pro-drugs, pro-life and pro-guns. Call me a conservitarian or a nationalist or whatever, but that's my journey.

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Who or what is responsible for your political awakening

2012 election, at 11 yrs old, I decided I was a political intellectual because I could copy-paste every generic Republican viewpoint as my own.

Fast foward to maybe 2-3 years ago when I started reading and reading about a bunch of classic stuff (Jefferson, Voltaire, Locke in particular). Learning about those views really pushed me out of being a conservative and way into libertarian territory. I got briefly involved with the alt-right/new right retard group for about a month a year ago until I realized what they actually were and became even further libertarian.

Still super libertarian but stick to primarily social issues because those are more important to me and I really don't have interest in economics.

The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Who or what is responsible for your political awakening?

I was somewhat aware of politics, but didn’t have much of an interest. My grandparents are more or less moderate Democrats, and my dad is a registered Republican. Eventually, he introduced me to Libertarianism, and I had some idea of what it was. Later, I spotted this region due to the proposal to Liberate CAPS, and I thought that this region would be interesting. Sooner or later, I booted myself from my school class region in order to escape, and came here. It was here that I learned more about politics, and I got more involved with conversations here and in real life. Coming here is be what led to my “political awakening”.

Pevvania, The New United States

Does anyone happen to still have the original flag of Libertatem, with the crossed-out hammer and sickle?

Rateria

Trump says he'll likely support a bipartisan bill to end federal marijuana prohibition. Where are the lolbertarians saying Trump is just another Republican?

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria

The New United States wrote:Does anyone happen to still have the original flag of Libertatem, with the crossed-out hammer and sickle?

Yes, I do!

The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Yes, I do!

Sweet! Any way you could upload it to imgur or to a factbook or something so that I can get my hands on it?

Rateria

The New United States wrote:Sweet! Any way you could upload it to imgur or to a factbook or something so that I can get my hands on it?

https://i.imgur.com/oKQADyp.png

The New United States, Rateria

Hey guys, I had applied for citizenship a few days ago and to my knowledge, I fulfill all the requirements for citizenship, I understand that Libertatem has the right to accept or deny any request at their discretion, but all I got back in response was "denied." I don't want to make it seem like I'm upset or anything, but I sent back a message asking why I was denied and haven't got an answer, can anyone shed some light on this?

Skaveria wrote:Hey guys, I had applied for citizenship a few days ago and to my knowledge, I fulfill all the requirements for citizenship, I understand that Libertatem has the right to accept or deny any request at their discretion, but all I got back in response was "denied." I don't want to make it seem like I'm upset or anything, but I sent back a message asking why I was denied and haven't got an answer, can anyone shed some light on this?

Me being lazy is why you never got a response. Apply again and I'll accept it.

I got the response, "Alright, you are not a citizen".

Pevvania wrote:Trump says he'll likely support a bipartisan bill to end federal marijuana prohibition. Where are the lolbertarians saying Trump is just another Republican?

What Trump says and what Trump does are entirely two different things. I don't judge politicians by what they say.

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Trump says he'll likely support a bipartisan bill to end federal marijuana prohibition. Where are the lolbertarians saying Trump is just another Republican?

I'm all for legal pot and whatnot, but he needs to do something about it instead of just saying he's for it.

Miencraft, Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:I'm all for legal pot and whatnot, but he needs to do something about it instead of just saying he's for it.

The thing is, though, that he is not king and has no authority to do much more than what he's already done.

What he said, though, is really important because: 1) It may make marijuana federalism a bigger priority for lawmakers and 2) it shows that he will probably sign off on it if it makes it to the White House.

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:I'm all for legal pot and whatnot, but he needs to do something about it instead of just saying he's for it.

Well specifically there's a bipartisan bill in the Senate on this matter that's been drafted by Cory Gardner and Elizabeth Warren. He indicated that he supports it, and simply saying so gives the chances of it passing a big boost.

The New United States, Rateria

Thank you to the 1 person who read the Objectivist's proposed domestic policy. I find it very important, yet feel it will be met with quite bit of opposition by those it most greatly affects. If it were put into affect at this instant, 20 nations would be kicked out of this region, although they would be welcome to return under the right conditions(improved economic/political/civil freedoms). I urge the rest of Libertatem to read the policy. It will take a definite step in the right direction in regards to eliminating the presence of authoritarian nations. It would be a disgusting violation of rights and an abuse of government power, IF nations were individuals, but they are not. Nations are nations, and the residents of those nations are the beings with rights, not the nations themselves. After all, there can be no "collective rights" and there can be no "right" to violate rights.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:Thank you to the 1 person who read the Objectivist's proposed domestic policy. I find it very important, yet feel it will be met with quite bit of opposition by those it most greatly affects. If it were put into affect at this instant, 20 nations would be kicked out of this region, although they would be welcome to return under the right conditions(improved economic/political/civil freedoms). I urge the rest of Libertatem to read the policy. It will take a definite step in the right direction in regards to eliminating the presence of authoritarian nations. It would be a disgusting violation of rights and an abuse of government power, IF nations were individuals, but they are not. Nations are nations, and the residents of those nations are the beings with rights, not the nations themselves. After all, there can be no "collective rights" and there can be no "right" to violate rights.

Where would I read this? There is an authoritarian measurement. Does a nation just have to be under some arbitrary number on it?

George Soros: "everything that could go wrong has gone wrong" https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/george-soros-donald-trump-washington-post-liberal/2018/06/09/id/865183/

We tired of winning yet, boys?

The New United States

Pevvania wrote:George Soros: "everything that could go wrong has gone wrong" https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/george-soros-donald-trump-washington-post-liberal/2018/06/09/id/865183/

We tired of winning yet, boys?

Nope. 😀

Pevvania

Details can be found on my fact book. Under Objectivist policies, Libertatem would consist exclusively of nations with 50 points or over in all three freedoms(economic, political, and civil).

Skaveria wrote:Where would I read this? There is an authoritarian measurement. Does a nation just have to be under some arbitrary number on it?

I believe that an the freedoms of a nation is much more useful than any authoritarian statistic in determining if they run an oppressive government.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:Details can be found on my fact book. Under Objectivist policies, Libertatem would consist exclusively of nations with 50 points or over in all three freedoms(economic, political, and civil).

I do believe you're ironically missing the point of freedom.

The New United States, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

The question that must be answered is: is the point of freedom the liberty of the individual to act by their own free will in accordance to their own ration self-interest, or is it the liberty of the government to restrict the individual? I agrue that the moral point of freedom sides with the former; with the individual. The Constitutional Republic of Lusitania is not an individual, just as no other nation in this region is an individual(in game, not IRL of course). The individuals are those who reside in our nations. Nations who violate the rights of their citizens, of the individual residents, can claim no rights for themselves. The least we can do to discourage the violation of individual rights is to kick out those nations whom believe they can claim a right to violate rights.

Miencraft wrote:I do believe you're ironically missing the point of freedom.

If freedom pertained primarily to those who govern and their freedom to act in accordance with what they find just regardless of its impact on individuals, then one can easily justify authoritarian and oppressive policies. We cannot stand by and do nothing about the breaches in liberty- true, individual liberty, that is- that are occurring in the nations within Libertatem.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:Nations who violate the rights of their citizens, of the individual residents, can claim no rights for themselves. The least we can do to discourage the violation of individual rights is to kick out those nations whom believe they can claim a right to violate rights.

See my disagreement with your party's platform is twofold.

First, you're trying to apply RP concepts to proper regional politics, wherein it's very clearly established that a nation is a person. Nothing wrong with that in an RP setting of course, but you're not going to get far with that sort of mindset with the way the region actually runs.

Secondly, because you're trying to do that, you run into this sort of situation where you kinda manage to completely miss the point of being a free, libertarian region. We can't discriminate based on ideology and still call ourselves a free region - that's what makes us better than all those commies that keep trying to paint us as the villains. We go over there to argue with them and they kick us out immediately, but then they can come over here and argue as long as they like. Then they'll go home and pretend they won but I'm sure even they know all they've really done is demonstrate our superiority.

And let's just assume for a moment that the region actually did operate according to RP concepts. Let's assume that the people who are in reality represented by their nation are actually represented by the leader of the nation. Therefore, any action a person takes in this game is the equivalent of their leader doing that.

First of all, how do you know that you're actually judging these people based on objective standards? Max Barry's ratings and numbers are notoriously unpredictable, vague, and inaccurate. Nobody really knows what any of the ratings actually mean or how to change them. How do you know that the way the game rates a nation's freedoms is actually accurate and objective, and not just some random number pulled out of some obscure calculation?

Secondly, how can you justify removing a person's rights because people in the country they run lack freedoms that you can't even gauge properly? You have no way of knowing if these people are being thrown into camps or if their freedoms are low just because they don't have collective healthcare and Max Barry says that's bad. And, ultimately, how do you know that violence is being used in the infringement of rights, and how could you justify removing rights in cases where it isn't?

And, really, what value is there to this eye-for-an-eye approach anyways? All it does in the end is perpetuate a cycle of people taking away the rights of others. Should we not, as a free region, take it upon ourselves to break the cycle, be the better men, and spread true freedom to the places that need it most? What does anyone gain from us doing the same thing we criticize others for?

And that just brings me back to the main point: what makes us any better than the people we condemn for taking away people's rights if we're going to just turn around and take away their rights? Is that not hypocrisy? If we chastise dictators, but then behave in exactly the same way as they do when we deal with dictators, what makes us any better than them? What makes us any different? Are we not then just another kind of dictator?

There is no true freedom in this. There never can be if the response to an offense is just the exact same thing as the offense itself.

Also, have you joined the discord yet? Totally consider doing that, it's a fun time.

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:If freedom pertained primarily to those who govern and their freedom to act in accordance with what they find just regardless of its impact on individuals, then one can easily justify authoritarian and oppressive policies. We cannot stand by and do nothing about the breaches in liberty- true, individual liberty, that is- that are occurring in the nations within Libertatem.

I would like to say that, the economic meter, next to civil rights and political freedoms, measures the strength of your economy, not your economic freedom, there is a measurement for economic freedom, but if your going to use it, use the right one. Also, civil rights count for both positive and negative rights on nationstates, so a nation with a huge welfare system could artificially increase their civil rights score while maintaining oppressive policies.

Miencraft, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:I would like to say that, the economic meter, next to civil rights and political freedoms, measures the strength of your economy, not your economic freedom, there is a measurement for economic freedom, but if your going to use it, use the right one. Also, civil rights count for both positive and negative rights on nationstates, so a nation with a huge welfare system could artificially increase their civil rights score while maintaining oppressive policies.

I have been referring to economic freedom, not economic strength.

Miencraft wrote:See my disagreement with your party's platform is twofold.

First, you're trying to apply RP concepts to proper regional politics, wherein it's very clearly established that a nation is a person. Nothing wrong with that in an RP setting of course, but you're not going to get far with that sort of mindset with the way the region actually runs.

Secondly, because you're trying to do that, you run into this sort of situation where you kinda manage to completely miss the point of being a free, libertarian region. We can't discriminate based on ideology and still call ourselves a free region - that's what makes us better than all those commies that keep trying to paint us as the villains. We go over there to argue with them and they kick us out immediately, but then they can come over here and argue as long as they like. Then they'll go home and pretend they won but I'm sure even they know all they've really done is demonstrate our superiority.

And let's just assume for a moment that the region actually did operate according to RP concepts. Let's assume that the people who are in reality represented by their nation are actually represented by the leader of the nation. Therefore, any action a person takes in this game is the equivalent of their leader doing that.

First of all, how do you know that you're actually judging these people based on objective standards? Max Barry's ratings and numbers are notoriously unpredictable, vague, and inaccurate. Nobody really knows what any of the ratings actually mean or how to change them. How do you know that the way the game rates a nation's freedoms is actually accurate and objective, and not just some random number pulled out of some obscure calculation?

Secondly, how can you justify removing a person's rights because people in the country they run lack freedoms that you can't even gauge properly? You have no way of knowing if these people are being thrown into camps or if their freedoms are low just because they don't have collective healthcare and Max Barry says that's bad. And, ultimately, how do you know that violence is being used in the infringement of rights, and how could you justify removing rights in cases where it isn't?

And, really, what value is there to this eye-for-an-eye approach anyways? All it does in the end is perpetuate a cycle of people taking away the rights of others. Should we not, as a free region, take it upon ourselves to break the cycle, be the better men, and spread true freedom to the places that need it most? What does anyone gain from us doing the same thing we criticize others for?

And that just brings me back to the main point: what makes us any better than the people we condemn for taking away people's rights if we're going to just turn around and take away their rights? Is that not hypocrisy? If we chastise dictators, but then behave in exactly the same way as they do when we deal with dictators, what makes us any better than them? What makes us any different? Are we not then just another kind of dictator?

There is no true freedom in this. There never can be if the response to an offense is just the exact same thing as the offense itself.

Also, have you joined the discord yet? Totally consider doing that, it's a fun time.

1. We cannot stand in-between RP and IRL. We need a consistent way of thought. If we wish to make the game as tangible and "realistic" as possible, we need to follow the ideas of RP that are clearly fundamental to this game. If we don't play for the sake of the game, in the game, then we play for the sake of what can ultimately be reduced to your own nation and a chat board. This is why we must regard residents as the true individuals even as they don't exist. Either you choose to play the game as a nation, or you play the game as a guy at a computer screen typing in a chat room. One is infinitely more fun than the other. But, your views need to be integrated and non-contradictory.

2. Never have I said that people can't argue opposite points. You can't restrict the speech of a communist even though their ideology is evil. Perhaps we allow some foreign nations to temporarily stay and can argue with us, but we can't keep a nation who violates the rights of other's under our wing forever. The policy should really pertain to the resident and citizen nations of Libertatem. Let me clarify, freedom of speech is absolute, freedom of action is not. Because the action they take might violate rights.

3. The actions in the game might be the leader alone, or might be a diplomat, or might be the governing body as a whole. What matters is that whoever is the person typing in game, it's a member of government and not a guy at a computer.

4. The ratings for freedoms in this game are somewhat unpredictable, but I find that you can usually anticipate what answers on issues will result in what. They actually do help estimating how free a nation is and should not be over looked and dismissed as "random" or "arbitrary" when they give valuable insight. They offer help in the form of knowledge, but it's our choice whether to think and use that knowledge or not.

5. The whole policy is built on the fact that nations are nations, just like they would be if we want to submerge ourselves in the game and play it properly, and that individuals are residents. By kicking these nations out we are discriminating, but we are discriminating for the better and against those who violate individual rights. Your argument rests on the fact that the nations have rights. They do not. Does a cold blooded murderer have rights have he has violated a man's right to live? No! He's locked in jail and possibly executed. Does and slave owner have rights as full as all others even though he owns another human being? No! He cannot claim the rights which he violates. Could socialist nations like Nazi Germany and the USSR claim the right to kill and slaughter and steal for the individual and trample the man's ego? No! Any free nation had the absolute right to invade those nations from the first massacre of many that would occur. We are better, because we don't violate rights, we punish those who have, because they can find no rights of their own where they have so mindlessly violated others'.

6. If you have collective healthcare then Max Berry got it right in lowering your freedoms. Also, I know that violence is being used to infringe rights because the power of the government is the power of the gun. It is the ONLY power of government. If you break the law, someone with a gun shows up; if you evade taxes, someone with a gun shows up eventually; if you speak your own mind in a nation that abuses government power, someone with a gun shows up and does god knows what to you. If it is the government enforcing the law, then the law is enforced by a gun and therefore, by force. There is no other way for rights to be violated except by the initiation of force. That is how I know that force is being used.

7. We are not breaking any cycles by doing nothing. We are only perpetuating and rewarding authoritarian nation's violations of rights. If we wanted to break the cycle, we would do whatever we can to act in opposition to their nations, as they have no rights when the violate their citizens'.

There is true freedom is this. There can always be if the response to an offense is to do our best to protect individual rights and punish those who act to infringe upon them.

I'm not on the discord yet, but I'll look into it.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:1. We cannot stand in-between RP and IRL. We need a consistent way of thought. If we wish to make the game as tangible and "realistic" as possible, we need to follow the ideas of RP that are clearly fundamental to this game. If we don't play for the sake of the game, in the game, then we play for the sake of what can ultimately be reduced to your own nation and a chat board. This is why we must regard residents as the true individuals even as they don't exist. Either you choose to play the game as a nation, or you play the game as a guy at a computer screen typing in a chat room. One is infinitely more fun than the other. But, your views need to be integrated and non-contradictory.

Yeah, but again the region is not set up to handle this. One nation = one person, and that's clearly defined in our laws and the Constitution. Your platform literally requires us to change every law we have to accommodate this perspective.

And, really, the game isn't set up to handle this either. The game pretty much relies on the concept that nations are people. It's not complex enough to do anything more. Were this an actual simulation game I would see your point but it isn't.

That reminds me, I'm going to look for strategy/simulation games we could have a 'tatem session of. Something like one of the Anno games or something. Could be fun. After we get through more of the Megacampaign, of course.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:We are only perpetuating and rewarding authoritarian nation's violations of rights. If we wanted to break the cycle, we would do whatever we can to act in opposition to their nations, as they have no rights when the violate their citizens'.

Again, what makes us any better than them for doing this, though? We look at them infringing upon rights and we decide the best course of action is to infringe upon their rights. How is that not perpetuating their violations? It's literally us saying they're bad for doing something that we then do to them. That sort of hypocrisy doesn't belong in a place that calls itself free.

Rateria

Oh yes, "Well-Meaning and Clearly Intelligent New Guy Comes and Proposes Huge Change Without Knowing athe Region All That Well Yet Then Gets Turned Down But Still Recognized as a Useful And Productive Member of Society and Becomes a Regular Contributor to The Region" (Produced by Tatem Studios and starring famous actors Pev and Humph) is starting! Save me a seat and some popcorn please

Miencraft, Rateria

1. Perspectives should not be changed because of the convenience of a set up.

2. The game doesn't rely on nations being individuals. If that were so then all statistics of your nation are irrelevant, and so is governing your nation for that matter. This is suppose to be a simulation game(albeit an exaggerated and sometimes unrealistic one). It is complex enough to hold this view point. If regions are like a nation, and nations are like states, and residents are individuals. You can in fact govern a nation under these principles.

3. We ARE better. You say that the people infringing upon rights have rights. But they do not. You can't commit a crime and then say you have a right not to be prosecuted. We are not violating rights because they forfeited their rights but running an oppressive government.

Miencraft wrote:Yeah, but again the region is not set up to handle this. One nation = one person, and that's clearly defined in our laws and the Constitution. Your platform literally requires us to change every law we have to accommodate this perspective.

And, really, the game isn't set up to handle this either. The game pretty much relies on the concept that nations are people. It's not complex enough to do anything more. Were this an actual simulation game I would see your point but it isn't.

That reminds me, I'm going to look for strategy/simulation games we could have a 'tatem session of. Something like one of the Anno games or something. Could be fun. After we get through more of the Megacampaign, of course.

Again, what makes us any better than them for doing this, though? We look at them infringing upon rights and we decide the best course of action is to infringe upon their rights. How is that not perpetuating their violations? It's literally us saying they're bad for doing something that we then do to them. That sort of hypocrisy doesn't belong in a place that calls itself free.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:1. Perspectives should not be changed because of the convenience of a set up.

2. The game doesn't rely on nations being individuals. If that were so then all statistics of your nation are irrelevant, and so is governing your nation for that matter. This is suppose to be a simulation game(albeit an exaggerated and sometimes unrealistic one). It is complex enough to hold this view point. If regions are like a nation, and nations are like states, and residents are individuals. You can in fact govern a nation under these principles.

3. We ARE better. You say that the people infringing upon rights have rights. But they do not. You can't commit a crime and then say you have a right not to be prosecuted. We are not violating rights because they forfeited their rights but running an oppressive government.

1. It's not a change of perspective. It's literally how the game works. If you want us to stop treating nations as people, then you have to change every last law we have.

2. Yeah, it kinda does. Population is just an arbitrary number (literally entirely arbitrary, look at my population - it's more than the population of the world), statistics are mostly arbitrary and calculated from things that nobody actually knows. The numbers aren't important.

3. Rights are absolute. They have to be, else they're not rights. Infringing on rights doesn't mean you no longer have them - even murderers have rights, and they took from someone the most important right in the world. To suggest rights cease to exist as a consequence of actions is to suggest that they're not actually rights at all in the first place. And if they were never rights in the first place, if they can be taken away because of something you did, that just inevitably leads to tyranny.

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Oh yes, "Well-Meaning and Clearly Intelligent New Guy Comes and Proposes Huge Change Without Knowing athe Region All That Well Yet Then Gets Turned Down But Still Recognized as a Useful And Productive Member of Society and Becomes a Regular Contributor to The Region" (Produced by Tatem Studios and starring famous actors Pev and Humph) is starting! Save me a seat and some popcorn please

The TTAuxliballopting Chronicles Part V: Lusitanian Boogaloo

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Murderers have a right to due process and other rights, but ultimately forfeit their right to go about freely in society and act by their own volition. If everybody had the every right imaginable regardless of their actions, then how to we justify any sort of criminal prosecution?

Population may be an arbitrary number, but the fact that we are nations at all means we have residents, which are individuals with rights(in game).

We really wouldn't have to change every law. It's not like we have real elections within nations and its not like individuals from within our nations are the ones sole affected by laws. Take for example the SAVE Act. Under your view of all laws pertaining to individuals, SAVE would be ridiculous. I say that the Save act wouldn't secure refugee status for individuals, but for nations, just like it does now. The laws wouldn't really change.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:It's not like we have real elections within nations

Speak for yourself.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:We really wouldn't have to change every law.

Yeah, you kinda would. They're all already predicated on the assumption that one nation = one person, which again is actually specifically defined legally.

And you'd still have to change the entire constitution because of its use of "nation".

Rateria

one nation=one nation. But, those nations are members that for citizenship and representative purposes can be said to be "one person". That person can really be reduced to an official or delegate. Nations have rights in regions in the same way states have rights in the USA.

Miencraft wrote:Speak for yourself.Yeah, you kinda would. They're all already predicated on the assumption that one nation = one person, which again is actually specifically defined legally.

And you'd still have to change the entire constitution because of its use of "nation".

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:Nations have rights in regions in the same way states have rights in the USA.

No, they don't. The Constitution here outlines the rights of citizen nations in such a way that parallels the rights that citizens of the United States have as individuals.

A nation is a person and you'd have to change all our laws and the entire Constitution to make that any different.

Rateria

Nations can be treated as individuals in that capacity, although they are really only a member nation with individuals citizens.

Miencraft wrote:No, they don't. The Constitution here outlines the rights of citizen nations in such a way that parallels the rights that citizens of the United States have as individuals.

A nation is a person and you'd have to change all our laws and the entire Constitution to make that any different.

The Constitutional Republic Of Lusitania wrote:Nations can be treated as individuals in that capacity, although they are really only a member nation with individuals citizens.

Those citizens have no acknowledged rights or privileges here, though. It's the nations that are granted everything.

You'd also kind of have to admit that the numbers are worthless if you want to go by the individual populations of nations because this region collectively has about 20x the population of Earth living in it. How can you really say with any objective certainty that hundreds of billions of fictional people are the real individuals here?

Rateria

Miencraft wrote:Those citizens have no acknowledged rights or privileges here, though. It's the nations that are granted everything.

You'd also kind of have to admit that the numbers are worthless if you want to go by the individual populations of nations because this region collectively has about 20x the population of Earth living in it. How can you really say with any objective certainty that hundreds of billions of fictional people are the real individuals here?

I didn't say anything about taking specific populations into account when passing legislation. They are fictional people, we run fictional nations in a fictional region with no real power to be heard of. I'm simply saying that we should commit to the game's reality, just as you have to commit to the real reality IRL(since the alternative is non-existence or survival qua animal, not survival qua man). If we do commit to the game which we play, then we must at least acknowledge the "existence" of residents within our nations. They are the individuals.

Make North Korea Great Again!

Pevvania, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

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