Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Welfare is for THE WEAK. Only the strong should survive in my nation.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:#RIPTyranny

Didnt you merge your party to create the RLP?

# down with party politics

The Amarican Empire wrote:# down with party politics

Nah. I used to hate parties but it helps the people campaigning and helps the voters.

Tyrants! North Korea has refounded Slavya as a trophy region, and in typical Juchist fashion are threatening the stability of the natives new region.

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:Nah. I used to hate parties but it helps the people campaigning and helps the voters.

When did you ever hate parties? Mr I'm going to pass judgment on all known political entities in the human universe and when i run out ill make some up made internally of horse and pass judgment on them as well.

Lack There Of wrote:When did you ever hate parties? Mr I'm going to pass judgment on all known political entities in the human universe and when i run out ill make some up made internally of horse and pass judgment on them as well.

When I first came to this region I was against parties on the belief the party system led tp uneducated voting.

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:When I first came to this region I was against parties on the belief the party system led tp uneducated voting.

And what made unlearn that

Lack There Of wrote:And what made you unlearn that

Lack There Of wrote:And what made unlearn that

I educated myself on the fact parties help in two ways.

Limit the Amount of Candidates who support the same thing.

Increases the support a candidate can get.

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:I educated myself on the fact parties help in two ways.

Limit the Amount of Candidates who support the same thing.

Increases the support a candidate can get.

Well i do love democracy and you make some strong points as to why parties have helped me to develop my deep and passionate feelings about voting in general

[B]Announcement from the Department of State[/B]

The region recognizes and embraces the region of Communist Republic. We pledge our support to them during this transitional period of their region and hope for the best possible outcome as they march brazenly into the future.

Lack There Of wrote:[B]Announcement from the Department of State[/B]

The region recognizes and embraces the region of Communist Republic. We pledge our support to them during this transitional period of their region and hope for the best possible outcome as they march brazenly into the future.

[B]-Presidential Approval-[/B]

Hello, this is Coldwater, I moved to Atlas for RP Reasons, but I also want to continue on my Libertatem stuff, so here ya go, my nation for that specific purpose :D

Lack There Of wrote:[B]Announcement from the Department of State[/B]

The region recognizes and embraces the region of Communist Republic. We pledge our support to them during this transitional period of their region and hope for the best possible outcome as they march brazenly into the future.

Wait...what?

Uh...They are a Communist region right.

Lack There Of wrote:Well i do love democracy and you make some strong points as to why parties have helped me to develop my deep and passionate feelings about voting in general

Sarcasm?

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:

Uh...They are a Communist region right.

Only in the same sense that our compatriots in UCR are communist. They have expressed interest in becoming closer and joining the fight against tyranny

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:Sarcasm?

are you questioning my undying loyalty to democratic governance.

Lack There Of wrote:Only in the same sense that our compatriots in UCR are communist. They have expressed interest in becoming closer and joining the fight against tyranny

are you questioning my undying loyalty to democratic governance.

So we...

*Hugs Humph and all his administration*

Yayayayayayayay

I'm questioning how yiu said that to mw.

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:

I'm questioning how yiu said that to mw.

I question a lot of things, such as how people can still support the principles of democracy when shows like honey boo boo are a real thing

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:So we...

*Hugs Humph and all his administration*

Yayayayayayayay

I'm questioning how yiu said that to mw.

*looks at TTA, looks around*

We've never been hostile to all communists.

Lack There Of wrote:I question a lot of things, such as how people can still support the principles of democracy when shows like honey boo boo are a real thing

*Facepalm* Oh yeah forgot you were an Anarchist.

Atlas Shrugged almost drove me over that edge when I realized that all Democracy was was a majorities right to control the minority, but I could never be an Anarchist. I depend on the state for the more basic of state actions (Justice, Police, Minimal Corporate laws, fun elections)

Humpheria wrote:*looks at TTA, looks around*

We've never been hostile to all communists.

Shhh

I'm having a Cum moment here.

(As dirty as it sounds look at Amaricans Factbook and you'll understand)

What's scary is that the people of the United states have gotten hedonistic. Caring only about them selves and there family and not the nation as a whole and what would be best for everyone and not just themselves and there class and that goes from the poor to the rich. Also alot of the people are ignorant of facts and some don't even care about what happens in politics. Yet we have universal voting. I say that we might have to limit voting to those who can pass a history, civics, and economics test. A responsible citizen should know how The United States works. (P.s) this is a suggestion, it's not apart of my beliefs yet.

The Amarican Empire wrote:What's scary is that the people of the United states have gotten hedonistic. Caring only about them selves and there family and not the nation as a whole and what would be best for everyone and not just themselves and there class and that goes from the poor to the rich. Also alot of the people are ignorant of facts and some don't even care about what happens in politics. Yet we have universal voting. I say that we might have to limit voting to those who can pass a history, civics, and economics test. A responsible citizen should know how The United States works. (P.s) this is a suggestion, it's not apart of my beliefs yet.

Guess what that's all caused by? Economic system!

I'm 5th in the region for largest welfare programs. Woo!

The Amarican Empire wrote:What's scary is that the people of the United states have gotten hedonistic. Caring only about them selves and there family and not the nation as a whole and what would be best for everyone and not just themselves and there class and that goes from the poor to the rich. Also alot of the people are ignorant of facts and some don't even care about what happens in politics. Yet we have universal voting. I say that we might have to limit voting to those who can pass a history, civics, and economics test. A responsible citizen should know how The United States works. (P.s) this is a suggestion, it's not apart of my beliefs yet.

Maybe....I'd agree but don't make the Economics too hard as while people should get the first two in a breeze the economics is less easy to understand and only make it maybe every 3 presidential elections.

However I like Universal Voting; but I could maybe see a compromise.

Everyone votes but those who competed the test and got a meeting score should get 2 votes and those with an exceeding score get 3 votes.

Zeouria wrote:Guess what that's all caused by? Economic system!

That's part of it. We have restricted the economy for so long that people have to get what they need or want from the very organization that restricted them in the first place.

Woo! We began bombing Syria.

The Amarican Empire wrote:That's part of it. We have restricted the economy for so long that people have to get what they need or want from the very organization that restricted them in the first place.

We certainly do not by our goods from the government in america.

Northern Prussia wrote:Woo! We began bombing Syria.

With assads permission I hope. If not then we have just committed an act of war.

Nope none at all. Its against ISIS.

We are in an Illegal Conflict with Isis.

America has no permission from the Assad regime and is thus violating universal laws of war. This is an act of war by the American Government on the Assad regime if Assad wishes to use this as a reason for war.

Zeouria wrote:We certainly do not by our goods from the government in america.

I mean like the poor get entitlements

The rich get corporate welfare

The poor get Obamacare

The rich get the military industrial complex.

These funds that go into these programs should go into tax cuts and Education. That way the government would not need to give handouts and a war machine just for these people to succeed.

The Amarican Empire wrote:With assads permission I hope. If not then we have just committed an act of war.

Technically, under internationally accepted law, we have not. As we are attacking a sovereign militant group, we are within our rights. That does not mean that we will not be retaliated against. That is why they were so sneaky with Pakistan in Bin Laden's execution. They weren't in the realm of illegality, but the Pakistani government would be within their legal rights to declare hostilities. Same with Syria.

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:We are in an Illegal Conflict with Isis.

America has no permission from the Assad regime and is thus violating universal laws of war. This is an act of war by the American Government on the Assad regime if Assad wishes to use this as a reason for war.

How dare you bomb terrorist!

Northern Prussia wrote:Nope none at all. Its against ISIS.

ISIL is not a recognized state. It's a terrorist group. So if you bomb ISIL in Syria then it's an act of war against syria.

Assad can legally declare war, but we have not committed an act of war as it is commonly defined.

The Amarican Empire wrote:I mean like the poor get entitlements

The rich get corporate welfare

The poor get Obamacare

The rich get the military industrial complex.

These funds that go into these programs should go into tax cuts and Education. That way the government would not need to give handouts and a war machine just for these people to succeed.

You can't have tax cuts and education.

Humpheria wrote:Assad can legally declare war, but we have not committed an act of war as it is commonly defined.

The Amarican Empire wrote:ISIL is not a recognized state. It's a terrorist group. So if you bomb ISIL in Syria then it's an act of war against syria.

Zeouria wrote:You can't have tax cuts and education.

Half the funds saved from the cuts go into tax cuts half goes into education. So yes you can.

The Amarican Empire wrote:ISIL is not a recognized state. It's a terrorist group. So if you bomb ISIL in Syria then it's an act of war against syria.

That is a subjective statement. To you, they are terrorists, to Iraq, they are freedom fighters and heroes of God. They are accepted in the Middle East as a sovereign entity.

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:

Humpheria wrote:That is a subjective statement. To you, they are terrorists, to Iraq, they are freedom fighters and heroes of God. They are accepted in the Middle East as a sovereign entity.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Half the funds saved from the cuts go into tax cuts half goes into education. So yes you can.

American taxes are WAY more complicated than that. If only it was that simple, but face it, it's not.

Humpheria wrote:That is a subjective statement. To you, they are terrorists, to Iraq, they are freedom fighters and heroes of God. They are accepted in the Middle East as a sovereign entity.

*By IT'S members.

Do you not understand every government over there doesn't recognize them.

I dont see it that way. All I see is thousands of brutes with guns, beheading innocent civilians. They are savages and they have earned the bombs we have given. No border will defend them for what atrocities they have committed.

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:*By IT'S members.

Do you not understand every government over there doesn't recognize them.

I do understand that. But some do, which is exactly why you cannot definitively make a solid legal argument one way or the other.

Humpheria wrote:That is a subjective statement. To you, they are terrorists, to Iraq, they are freedom fighters and heroes of God. They are accepted in the Middle East as a sovereign entity.

No they are not. Look at the news latly? Even Iran hates them.

Northern Prussia wrote:I dont see it that way. All I see is thousands of brutes with guns, beheading innocent civilians. They are savages and they have earned the bombs we have given. No border will defend them for what atrocities they have committed.

A border America has no permission to enter will or at least should in fact stop them.

ISIS IS NOT OUR WAR. IT'S THE EATSTS WAR. Let Middle East and Europe fight against them alone or die trying. America has no real reason to fight besides 2 journalists who were idiotic enough to go over there.

Humpheria wrote:I do understand that. But some do, which is exactly why you cannot definitively make a solid legal argument one way or the other.

As always, I agree with humphy. It's a subjective matter.

It's America's fault they're in this situation in the first places. Getting involved in the middle east is always a bad idea, and a lesson never learned by the american powerful.

Humpheria wrote:I do understand that. But some do, which is exactly why you cannot definitively make a solid legal argument one way or the other.

The Governments are all that matter they hold the say and they don't recognize it as sovereign if no Governments recognize it then it's not sovereign fir any nation.

Northern Prussia wrote:No they are not. Look at the news latly? Even Iran hates them.

Don't shoot the messenger.

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:A border America has no permission to enter will or at least should in fact stop them.

ISIS IS NOT OUR WAR. IT'S THE EATSTS WAR. Let Middle East and Europe fight against them alone or die trying. America has no real reason to fight besides 2 journalists who were idiotic enough to go over there.

I won't even give that a response.

Zeouria wrote:American taxes are WAY more complicated than that. If only it was that simple, but face it, it's not.

We can debate in private when I have more time this weekend. Mark your calendar tsary poo!

Humpheria wrote:Don't shoot the messenger.

I won't even give that a response.

I need a warning in my signature

Warning: My views are very radical and very unagreeable.

Good night. Hope I don't wake up to a war with Syria. *proceeds to shake in shoes*

Assad hates ISIL just as much as we do. What's the harm in asking him. It would look better then just doing it because we are Murica.

Northern Prussia wrote:Woo! We began bombing Syria.

Wat

The Amarican Empire wrote:Assad hates ISIL just as much as we do. What's the harm in asking him. It would look better then just doing it because we are Murica.

We don't need to ask him. The Islamic State will be defeated by the United States/France/United Kingdom coalition, with or without Assad's permission.

Rotgeheim wrote:We don't need to ask him. The Islamic State will be defeated by the United States/France/United Kingdom coalition, with or without Assad's permission.

We need his permission.

And France refused to do Air Strikes.

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:We need his permission.

And France refused to do Air Strikes.

They said it was illegal or something.

No.

How many times must we realize that intervention won't make the baddies go away? The only power that ISIS is getting is through attention, and we shouldn't give them that.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:No.

How many times must we realize that intervention won't make the baddies go away? The only power that ISIS is getting is through attention, and we shouldn't give them that.

good point. Its almost like the last major round of middle eastern meddling caused provocation for another

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:We need his permission.

And France refused to do Air Strikes.

France is currently conducting air operations in Iraq. I was referring to their previous engagements, not their possible incursions into Syrian airspace.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:No.

How many times must we realize that intervention won't make the baddies go away? The only power that ISIS is getting is through attention, and we shouldn't give them that.

So should we sit back and let them claim Northern Syria and Northern Iraq and let them butcher scores of innocents? The United Nations has already said that their merciless slaughter was nearing genocide. As a member state of the United Nations we cannot allow IS to continue.

The Islamic State is ideologically indistinguishable from Al Qaida and has greater resources than any terrorist group in history. They're a clear and present danger to US interests.

If Assad tries to attack our planes or if we're concerned he might benefit too much from the strikes, we can always hit him too. It would serve as a nice kick in the face to Putin, anyway.

Rotgeheim wrote:So should we sit back and let them claim Northern Syria and Northern Iraq and let them butcher scores of innocents? The United Nations has already said that their merciless slaughter was nearing genocide. As a member state of the United Nations we cannot allow IS to continue.

What makes you think that they have the resources to claim Northern Syria and Northern Iraq?

The citizens aren't defenseless either. Private defense agencies will form and those who aren't too bigoted will flee to Israel or Turkey.

I dunno, I know it might technically not be war... but it wouldn't be cool if Assad sent bombers to America because they were under threat from a so called "militant group".

Well, it of course depends on definition, but last time I checked, the US was engaged in 134 wars. I think it's time to accept that this is a problem.

Muh Roads wrote:I dunno, I know it might technically not be war... but it wouldn't be cool if Assad sent bombers to America because they were under threat from a so called "militant group".

Well, he's welcome to try... and then face the consequences.

Liberosia wrote:Actual total warming has not been present for some time, and a lot of the disasters attributed to carbon emissions have been occurring long before the past century at roughly the same rate. My chief concern is the effect our emissions have on the ozone and the increases radiation levels it would beget. Warmth is not necessarily a bad thing, but gama rays certainly are (or the increase thereof).

I wonder if the libertarian solution to this, if there really is a problem. I would hypothesize that the courts could be sufficient to solve this problem, provided there was enough evidence to support the claim of property rights violations (cancer perhaps).

I, like Rothbard, believe that there is a libertarian solution to the environmental crises plaguing the world: property rights. Make companies legally responsible for the pollution they cause, allow property owners affected by pollution to claim compensation and free energy markets to stimulate supply, drive down costs and make sustainable energy universally efficient in the long term. Eventually the market will have to abandon fossil fuels - nobody will pay thousands of dollars a gallon for oil when it becomes so scarce.

Rotgeheim wrote:You know, I dislike some of Reagan's policies, but I do like that he did away with revenue sharing. New Federalism is a great concept to go back to, and I like that he was one of the first to get the ball rolling. Carter impeded his progress a bit, but H. W. Bush, W. Bush, and Clinton kept it going.

Agreed.

Snabagag wrote:Well, it of course depends on definition, but last time I checked, the US was engaged in 134 wars. I think it's time to accept that this is a problem.

Can I has a list?

What are your thoughs on deflation?

Pevvania wrote:What are your thoughs on deflation?

Thoughts*

Funkytopia wrote:Well, he's welcome to try... and then face the consequences.

And why would he have to face consequences if we aren't expected to face them in syria?

Pevvania wrote:What are your thoughs on deflation?

BRING BACK THE GOLD STANDARD HAHAHAHA

Ah sorry guys I was gone most of yesterday.

If you have any questions please ask

Atomic Fest is running as a Libertarian Imperialist.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:BRING BACK THE GOLD STANDARD HAHAHAHA

For libertarians, I think this issue is a no-brainer. But what are your thoughts on deflation in the economy?

The Human-Equine Alliance wrote:Can I has a list?

http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-now-involved-134-wars/196846/

Pevvania wrote:For libertarians, I think this issue is a no-brainer. But what are your thoughts on deflation in the economy?

At specific times, radical deflation is a good thing. Benign deflation is definitely a positive and is in fact the reason wages rise under capitalism.

Just watched this great cartoon on fractional banking. Freaking hilarious

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM

Liberosia wrote:At specific times, radical deflation is a good thing. Benign deflation is definitely a positive and is in fact the reason wages rise under capitalism.

I think deflation, in the short term, can definitely have its negatives. But what the Krugbots can't explain is why all hell didn't break loose during the 19th Century, which was a period of extended deflation that lasted until the Progressive Era. The Keynesians say that deflation is bad because consumers postpone spending to wait for lower prices - but what they never take into account is what happens when consumers start spending again en masse.

Muh Roads wrote:And why would he have to face consequences if we aren't expected to face them in syria?

Because we have the bigger stick, of course. This isn't a "fairness" issue; it's a strategic one.

You can't postpone consumerism...especially with Apple.

I like deflation if it is benign, yeah.

Atomic Fest wrote:Ah sorry guys I was gone most of yesterday.

If you have any questions please ask

What are your positions on the issues?

Pevvania wrote:I think deflation, in the short term, can definitely have its negatives. But what the Krugbots can't explain is why all hell didn't break loose during the 19th Century, which was a period of extended deflation that lasted until the Progressive Era. The Keynesians say that deflation is bad because consumers postpone spending to wait for lower prices - but what they never take into account is what happens when consumers start spending again en masse.

It intrigues me to see a kind of operating assumption among Keynesians, as if consumption could reach 0 or perpetually continue in a downwards spiral. People must consume, but whatever is not consumed will be saved/invested, contributing to further economic growth. Maximum consumption would be a very sad economy indeed, and could lead to a cyclical trap like we've seen in most of history.

I am partial to short term deflation at the end of a credit boom. Liquidate those malinvestments.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:What makes you think that they have the resources to claim Northern Syria and Northern Iraq?

The citizens aren't defenseless either. Private defense agencies will form and those who aren't too bigoted will flee to Israel or Turkey.

That is by far the most ignorant and biggoted statement I have read all day. Who on this planet will create a "defense agency" to fight ISIS. Open your eyes and look around, these extremist are killing scores of innocent and you are in belief that they can get up and just leave. There is a war out there and these people are being shot for any reason. You are ignorant as all Americans.

Northern Prussia wrote:That is by far the most ignorant and biggoted statement I have read all day. Who on this planet will create a "defense agency" to fight ISIS. Open your eyes and look around, these extremist are killing scores of innocent and you are in belief that they can get up and just leave. There is a war out there and these people are being shot for any reason. You are ignorant as all Americans.

There are plenty of private military contractors out there. But this is really an issue that the Middle East should be handling by themselves. There are 200 million people living in the countries that border ISIS. I think we should provide tactical support in the form of air strikes and so forth, but really, all we're doing is encouraging more dependency if we keep getting ourselves directly involved in there.

And hey now, don't start bringing out the ad hominems.

ISIS might be the largest extremist group we've seen to date, but they are surrounded by moderates who will turn on them given only the slightest provocation. The Middle East is very capable of handling this threat on its own, and it is indeed a threat that would not have existed if not for American involvement.

Funkytopia wrote:Because we have the bigger stick, of course. This isn't a "fairness" issue; it's a strategic one.

I'm just saying, if the tables were turned we wouldn't stand for that here. They are provoking the people of the middle east, for what it's worth, were provoking another terrorist attack. Which you know what that means, more security issues and less freedoms for the individuals here in the US. It's almost as if our politicians don't recognize the long term consequences, or rather, just don't care.

Pevvania wrote:What are your positions on the issues?

Well I am better at answering questions but...

Pro-marriage equality

Abortion neutral

Pro gun rights

Very fiscally conservative

R/D Raider

With that said, this article is a bit comforting in some aspects:

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/23/6832577/the-us-is-bombing-syria-what-we-know-and-dont-know

Atomic Fest wrote:Well I am better at answering questions but...

Pro-marriage equality

Abortion neutral

Pro gun rights

Very fiscally conservative

R/D Raider

Most of those issues aren't really relevant to Libertatem, except the last one. What are your positions on

-Board transparency

-The issue of impeachment

-The War on Communism

Atomic Fest wrote:Well I am better at answering questions but...

Pro-marriage equality

Abortion neutral

Pro gun rights

Very fiscally conservative

R/D Raider

What's your position on board transparency?

Pevvania wrote:Most of those issues aren't really relevant to Libertatem, except the last one. What are your positions on

-Board transparency

-The issue of impeachment

-The War on Communism

Blast you beat me to it.

Pevvania wrote:Most of those issues aren't really relevant to Libertatem, except the last one. What are your positions on

-Board transparency

-The issue of impeachment

-The War on Communism

1: I support board transparency

2: I supported the impeachment of Godisdead And all other inactive government officials

3: I support the War on Communism to an extent

Muh Roads wrote:I'm just saying, if the tables were turned we wouldn't stand for that here. They are provoking the people of the middle east, for what it's worth, were provoking another terrorist attack. Which you know what that means, more security issues and less freedoms for the individuals here in the US. It's almost as if our politicians don't recognize the long term consequences, or rather, just don't care.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but more terrorists do not necessarily mean more terrorism. Recruitment is, in fact, one of the least important parameters when dealing with groups like Al Qaida, IS, Al Nusra, etc...

In order to achieve a high-level attack, the main obstacles are training operatives, obtaining travel documents, building networks of safe houses, and (above all) funding. All of these things require a base of operations that Islamic State controlled territory in Iraq and Syria provide. That's why we cannot stand by while Islamic State militants turn half of the Levant into Afghanistan 2.0. While nation-building is not an option, we can keep hitting them with drones and airstrikes every time they start to build up their capability. Until the situation changes on the ground, that's really the West's only option.

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