Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

CI promised not to end the war, but now is doing that every thing. He lied in order to get into office. The electorate was misled.

Miencraft wrote:So you missed it entirely.

Ignorance is lack of knowledge.

OR refusing to give attention to something, hence the prefix ignore.

Pevvania wrote:CI promised not to end the war, but now is doing that every thing. He lied in order to get into office. The electorate was misled.

Unfortunately, that's politics. I don't blame you for being against it.

Shermaniya Ii wrote:OR refusing to give attention to something, hence the prefix ignore.

No. Ignorance is literally just lacking information or knowledge.

Miencraft wrote:No. Ignorance is literally just lacking information or knowledge.

So you are completely ignoring what I said because you have no rebuttal. Got it.

I was not present in Libertatem during the election so when it comes to argument that CI promised not to end the war on communism, is there any way someone present can show me proof.

Capitalanada wrote:I was not present in Libertatem during the election so when it comes to argument that CI promised not to end the war on communism, is there any way someone present can show me proof.

Read back on the RMB.

Capitalanada wrote:I was not present in Libertatem during the election so when it comes to argument that CI promised not to end the war on communism, is there any way someone present can show me proof.

I remember him saying that.

Anyone willing to go dig into the endless RMB?

Shermaniya Ii wrote:So you are completely ignoring what I said because you have no rebuttal. Got it.

No, because Pev is generally better at this than I am; I'm the definitions guy, and you're bad at definitions.

I wasn't around during the election, but if communists are attacking us, why would we try to sue for peace with them? I say turn the heat on and let them burn.

The Wabash wrote:I wasn't around during the election, but if communists are attacking us, why would we try to sue for peace with them? I say turn the heat on and let them burn.

This new guy gets it.

Miencraft wrote:This new guy gets it.

Almost too good to be true.

Humpheria wrote:Almost too good to be true.

It is

Humpheria wrote:Almost too good to be true.

How do you mean?

The Wabash wrote:I wasn't around during the election, but if communists are attacking us, why would we try to sue for peace with them? I say turn the heat on and let them burn.

Because at the moment I'm not necessarily arguing against the war on communism, instead, im trying to see if the newfound friction between some of the nations of Libertatem and CI is valid. I cannot possibly have a standpoint on the issue of whether or not CI lied without the words expressly saying that the war on communism would not end. So until I can find said words, I must remain neutral in the matter.

Capitalanada wrote:Because at the moment I'm not necessarily arguing against the war on communism, instead, im trying to see if the newfound friction between some of the nations of Libertatem and CI is valid. I cannot possibly have a standpoint on the issue of whether or not CI lied without the words expressly saying that the war on communism would not end. So until I can find said words, I must remain neutral in the matter.

Ooh, logic.

I'm too tired to go find his actual words, but as someone who's been here equally as long as he has, I can assure you that he's never expressed anti-War sentiment for as long as I know him; the recent elections are the first I've heard of this.

It's not proof, but obviously something strange is happening if all of a sudden I announce (and it was never a goddamn secret) that I'm staunchly pro-War, then suddenly CI comes out and says he'll end the War, and then he wins the election, something must be up, considering he's never had that view before.

Again, it's not proof, and if you want to go get some proof you can look back through the RMB yourself, but anecdotes work I guess (no they don't).

Shermaniya Ii wrote:Pev, your sheer lack of knowledge to differentiate between State Socialism and Communism surprises me. All of these regions are Socialist. If they were communism, there would be an anarcho-communism esque situation, much like Makhnovia.

Send me a wall of text like usual, i'm ready this time.

Somehow, my eyes missed this first time scrolling ^_^

No, you're right, I often chastise my politically-minded friends for ignoring the distinction. When I use the term "war on communism", I mean war against those who believe in communism. Obviously, there are no communist regions and no anarchist regions and no capitalist/free market regions, because regions are built to have a hierarchy and a government. Obviously, economics forms no real part of game mechanics.

My views on communism is that it's founded on ignorance of economics, but if people want to do it voluntarily then they should. I am interested in the ideas of the Anti Authoritarian Alliance, but generally I think that anarcho-communism, the ideology as it currently stands, is a joke. Most an-coms are violent hypocrites that want to replace the state with an anarcho-government. Basically, majority rule tyranny (government) masquerading as egalitarianism.

Miencraft wrote:Ooh, logic.

I'm too tired to go find his actual words, but as someone who's been here equally as long as he has, I can assure you that he's never expressed anti-War sentiment for as long as I know him; the recent elections are the first I've heard of this.

It's not proof, but obviously something strange is happening if all of a sudden I announce (and it was never a goddamn secret) that I'm staunchly pro-War, then suddenly CI comes out and says he'll end the War, and then he wins the election, something must be up, considering he's never had that view before.

Again, it's not proof, and if you want to go get some proof you can look back through the RMB yourself, but anecdotes work I guess (no they don't).

I can understand where you are coming from and i am currently looking back through the RMB

Pevvania wrote:Somehow, my eyes missed this first time scrolling ^_^

No, you're right, I often chastise my politically-minded friends for ignoring the distinction. When I use the term "war on communism", I mean war against those who believe in communism. Obviously, there are no communist regions and no anarchist regions and no capitalist/free market regions, because regions are built to have a hierarchy and a government. Obviously, economics forms no real part of game mechanics.

My views on communism is that it's founded on ignorance of economics, but if people want to do it voluntarily then they should. I am interested in the ideas of the Anti Authoritarian Alliance, but generally I think that anarcho-communism, the ideology as it currently stands, is a joke. Most an-coms are violent hypocrites that want to replace the state with an anarcho-government. Basically, majority rule tyranny (government) masquerading as egalitarianism.

Wise words Pev. You continue to amaze me.

Capitalanada wrote:I can understand where you are coming from and i am currently looking back through the RMB

Capital, I will look through the RMB properly, but this is from his inaugural address 8 days ago:

I understand that some have raised concern over my ambition to attain the Presidency; there is a whispered fear that I intend to compromise the region's identity, or pander to foreign powers, or call an abrupt end to all hostilities. To these allegations, I must put my foot down – being the President means that I am to serve you all, and not the other way around. It is in the region's interest, not my own, to nurture and expand our identity beyond its historic confines, to negotiate only from a position of strength, and to stand against those who dare to suppress liberty. You, the people of Libertatem, have entrusted me with this office, and so I will do my utmost to reciprocate this trust to you; this administration is yours.

We are more than the apocryphal, archaic War on Communism. We are a genuine, growing world power. We are Libertatem! God bless you, and thank you.

Shermaniya Ii wrote:Wise words Pev. You continue to amaze me.

I do try ;)

Pevvania wrote:Capital, I will look through the RMB properly, but this is from his inaugural address 8 days ago:

I understand that some have raised concern over my ambition to attain the Presidency; there is a whispered fear that I intend to compromise the region's identity, or pander to foreign powers, or call an abrupt end to all hostilities. To these allegations, I must put my foot down – being the President means that I am to serve you all, and not the other way around. It is in the region's interest, not my own, to nurture and expand our identity beyond its historic confines, to negotiate only from a position of strength, and to stand against those who dare to suppress liberty. You, the people of Libertatem, have entrusted me with this office, and so I will do my utmost to reciprocate this trust to you; this administration is yours.

We are more than the apocryphal, archaic War on Communism. We are a genuine, growing world power. We are Libertatem! God bless you, and thank you.

Thank you for this Pev, and CI does somewhat contradict himself with this regarding CI's recent standpoint on the TLU. However, in the address, he does go on to say that we are above the war on communism, so although CI contradicts himself on not ending hostilities, i dont see how he is completely lying about ending the war on communism.

Capitalanada wrote:Thank you for this Pev, and CI does somewhat contradict himself with this regarding CI's recent standpoint on the TLU. However, in the address, he does go on to say that we are above the war on communism, so although CI contradicts himself on not ending hostilities, i dont see how he is completely lying about ending the war on communism.

During the campaign he repeatedly stated his support for the war. His main foreign policy beef was pledging to change tactics for greater efficiency, which nobody opposed.

Shermaniya Ii wrote:Unfortunately, that's politics. I don't blame you for being against it.

Just politics? Just politics?! I never believed for a second that Libertatem would succumb to such deceit and treachery! Our leaders have long been known around NationStates for their candour and integrity. Tundrania didn't lie, Lone Star didn't even want the job. Snabagag was a firmly principled President that did not back down from his beliefs, even on the day I defeated him. Obviously, I never lied once and made my intentions plain. Humph and Miencraft were the same. But for a President to lie to get elected? This is a new and sad low for Libertatem.

Maybe I'm over-dramatising. Maybe there's something I've missed. Either way, I'm eager to hear the President's explanation for this.

On a lighter subject, PBS in America, BBC in Britain and the mother-fvcking ABC in Australia are really the financially easiest things to privatise.

Pevvania wrote:On a lighter subject, PBS in America, BBC in Britain and the mother-fvcking ABC in Australia are really the financially easiest things to privatise.

What's a PBS?

Humpheria wrote:What's a PBS?

I was going to answer seriously because I didn't recognize the flag (of course I know it's French, you know what I mean), but then I checked the name again.

Humpheria wrote:What's a PBS?

userious?

I am serious. It sounds familiar but I have no idea what it means.

Judging by being grouped with BBC, is it something involving tv?

Humpheria wrote:Judging by being grouped with BBC, is it something involving tv?

It's more or less our BBC, I suppose.

Stands for Public Broadcasting Station, I think.

Humpheria wrote:What's a PBS?

A biased channel in America that epitomizes liberalism and does a scary but good job of putting liberalistic ideals in adolescent minds and families across the country without exploring other ideas.

Capitalanada wrote:A biased channel in America that epitomizes liberalism and does a scary but good job of putting liberalistic ideals in adolescent minds and families across the country without exploring other ideas.

On a scale of one to frighteningly accurate, guess where this ends up?

Miencraft wrote:On a scale of one to frighteningly accurate, guess where this ends up?

Where?

PBS - Public Broadcasting Service. Basically, glorious Soviet State Media.

Well, not to that extent. It's less obviously biased towards the left than CNN, NBC, CBS, et al. Most of their indoctrination skills come from selling false history.

Capitalanada wrote:Where?

Frighteningly accurate.

Well, maybe not frighteningly, but accurate nonetheless.

I agree with Pevvania in that it isn't as obvious as NBC or CNN but yes, they are pretty biased and they love to condemn past history that goes against the liberal agenda

I still don't get why people are saying "The Swiss Charlie" a lot...?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I still don't get why people are saying "The Swiss Charlie" a lot...?

._.

It translates into "I Am Charlie".

To me, it seems like another cringey #Hashtag feels movement just like #IllRideWithYou. But y'know, solidarity against terrorists and all that.

No hashtags for the hostage crisis in Australia in December, but one for a shorter crisis in France. Makes sense.

Shermaniya Ii wrote:No hashtags for the hostage crisis in Australia in December, but one for a shorter crisis in France. Makes sense.

There was one. #IllRideWithYou was started to make sure Muslims didn't get victimised as a result of the hostage crisis.

Pevvania wrote:There was one. #IllRideWithYou was started to make sure Muslims didn't get victimised as a result of the hostage crisis.

Interesting.

I'm new to this region. I was just perusing the regions, and I found this to be a good one to be around.

Here is the video of the special forces assault in the jewish market in Paris, if you are interested :

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2edu5n_exclusif-france-2-les-images-du-face-a-face-entre-le-raid-et-amedy-coulibaly-lors-de-l-assaut-porte_news?start=15

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:Here is the video of the special forces assault in the jewish market in Paris, if you are interested :

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2edu5n_exclusif-france-2-les-images-du-face-a-face-entre-le-raid-et-amedy-coulibaly-lors-de-l-assaut-porte_news?start=15

Not trying to be insensitive but that dude just went leeroy jenkins

Shermaniya Ii wrote:[nation=conservative_idealism_in_libertatem], I applaud your decision to end the "war on communism" and leave the Leftist Unin alone. I feel that this is the best decision you could have taken.

Thank you.

Pevvania wrote:Note on the RLP's position on the War: we have not supported an unconditional war on communism for years now. Our views are in line with the policy of the past five administrations: that Bolsheviks (militant Stalinists and vanguardists) and fascists should be fought and confronted wherever they are, and peaceful/friendly leftist regions willing to co-exist should be extended the hand of friendship.

This is your chance to prove it. This article of the Constitution encourages - nay, demands - an unconditional War on Communism. Though, in practice, we have set aside the precedent to "help any nation/region who wishes to pursue this war on communism by means of puppets, traditional warfare, and deception", or "be forced to ally with the fascist nations", we have still not adapted our Constitution to reflect this. As long as that article exists, every leftist ally we make, every fascist region we break, and every step towards democracy we make could be considered a betrayal, even if it is morally right.

This cannot stand. If we are to continue that policy, we must make it abundantly clear that the archaic policy of an autocratic past Libertatem has been abolished, both in spirit and writing.

Miencraft wrote:Yes, because it's really crucial that we differentiate between "state socialism" and "communism" while fighting the tyrannical left.

The article insists we fight communists, and says nothing of state socialists. It must either be drastically amended or struck from the modern record of laws.

Pevvania wrote:CI promised not to end the war, but now is doing that every thing. He lied in order to get into office. The electorate was misled.

I made no such promise.

I promised to end the War by attaining victory during my campaign - and that's just what we shall do. We shall earn a military victory against the renegades who still dare to oppose us. We shall earn a diplomatic victory by expanding our alliances and winning over the libertarian left. And we shall earn a moral victory by eliminating the passage that would hold us to a different, more misguided standard of victory and bring an end to the formal War on Communism, as should have been done long ago.

Upon doing that, we can decide for ourselves what to do with our military and what our region's destiny is; continuing to take the fight to the fascists and state socialists, as we have for many months against the wishes of Article VIII, is likely what we will continue to do for the foreseeable future.

Pevvania wrote:Capital, I will look through the RMB properly, but this is from his inaugural address 8 days ago:

I understand that some have raised concern over my ambition to attain the Presidency; there is a whispered fear that I intend to compromise the region's identity, or pander to foreign powers, or call an abrupt end to all hostilities. To these allegations, I must put my foot down – being the President means that I am to serve you all, and not the other way around. It is in the region's interest, not my own, to nurture and expand our identity beyond its historic confines, to negotiate only from a position of strength, and to stand against those who dare to suppress liberty. You, the people of Libertatem, have entrusted me with this office, and so I will do my utmost to reciprocate this trust to you; this administration is yours.

We are more than the apocryphal, archaic War on Communism. We are a genuine, growing world power. We are Libertatem! God bless you, and thank you.

My inaugural address is assurance that ending the War on Communism does not mean compromising our military position, whether to foreign powers or otherwise. In fact, I doubt much of anything will change once we end our ignored legal obligation to side with our enemies (the fascists) to attack potential friends (some communists), aside from a greater degree of success in foreign affairs.

Pevvania wrote:Maybe I'm over-dramatising. Maybe there's something I've missed. Either way, I'm eager to hear the President's explanation for this.

Provided. It's now your turn, former President, to give us an explanation of why you intend to defend Article VIII even though you allegedly don't support its contents.

I'm sure that this is going to get pretty heated. If it comes to a vote, as a Board member, I will reserve my right to vote in the private process, but someone will need to remain legally objective. I will not speak in support or detriment to the President's declaration. I am also working an article (that will contain quotes from both sides).

I can note that Pev's gone to bed for the night.

I am waiting on a position from Manager Funkytopia to post the Article.

Humpheria wrote:This guy's cool. He's not one of the recent spies. I can vouch.

Can, in ten days you can apply for Citizenship to become a voting member of Libertatem.

Thanks Humpheria

And then you can apply for the military and start raiding. More people means more power for Libertatem, and we'll need it.

Would we consider TCB an enemy, or neutral power?

Shermaniya Ii wrote:Would we consider TCB an enemy, or neutral power?

Enemy.

Shermaniya Ii wrote:Quick response

Ikr

But seriously, check out DK's RMB and TCB's news.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:They're neutral. So far.

No they aren't.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:They're neutral. So far.

Conspiring to attack our allies is a declaration of war!

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Conspiring to attack our allies is a declaration of war!

Yup

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Conspiring to attack our allies is a declaration of war!

If they want war, they can submit it in writing - I'm not about to fault them for getting blown off by our real enemies, or naively assuming that getting in the good graces of extremists will help their position. They made a severe error in judgment, and we did not even have to humiliate them for it for them to see their plot fail.

Never let it be said that I am not sporting. I can forgive a mistake so stupid a grand total of once; friendship is not without its perks, and the Communist Bloc knows this. They should also know that to try again and squander this second chance would be a death wish, and one I will not hesitate to grant.

Article up for you NS++ers.

For those who don't use NS++,

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=humpheria/detail=factbook/id=352009

It is very long.

Our formal policy toward TCB will be to break relations.

I'm proud of the efforts Libertatem has made to build relations with TCB and other moderate-left regions. Unfortunately, it seems that the moderate-left lacks honest leadership who are willing to put aside the false right-left dichotomy and stand up for democratic principles. As a result, they permit themselves to be bullied and manipulated by extremists in the NK/DK.

The day the moderate-left decides they don't want to be anybody's stooge, we'll be here.

Miencraft, Humpheria, Conservative Idealism In Libertatem

Funkytopia wrote:Our formal policy toward TCB will be to break relations.

I'm proud of the efforts Libertatem has made to build relations with TCB and other moderate-left regions. Unfortunately, it seems that the moderate-left lacks honest leadership who are willing to put aside the false right-left dichotomy and stand up for democratic principles. As a result, they permit themselves to be bullied and manipulated by extremists in the NK/DK.

The day the moderate-left decides they don't want to be anybody's stooge, we'll be here.

More like they don't want to be isolated from the rest of the Leftist community. Their leadership is just as strong as ours.

Shermaniya Ii wrote:More like they don't want to be isolated from the rest of the Leftist community. Their leadership is just as strong as ours.

Are you in the right place, honey?

Shermaniya Ii wrote:More like they don't want to be isolated from the rest of the Leftist community. Their leadership is just as strong as ours.

What community? There's NK/DK demanding changes to other regions' internal policies and attacking them when they don't. Then there's [nation=Zenny] and [nation=Hai Jin Lao] who are so cowed by them, they bend over backwards and sell out their regions to a bunch of extremists....

It would be like Brazil, admittedly a welfare-state but a relatively successful democracy, taking orders from North Korea. Truly bizarre!

Funkytopia wrote:What community? There's NK/DK demanding changes to other regions' internal policies and attacking them when they don't. Then there's [nation=Zenny] and [nation=Hai Jin Lao] who are so cowed by them, they bend over backwards and sell out their regions to a bunch of extremists....

It would be like Brazil, admittedly a welfare-state but a relatively successful democracy, taking orders from North Korea. Truly bizarre!

With a population like theirs, they could be the Leftist community. Strong leadership is making the most of what you have; they have more potential than most, but right now, they're squandering it.

When they're ready to join the big leagues and stop negotiating with ideological terrorists, we'll be around to show our support. Until then, they can stay on their side of the ideological gap without us.

"join the big leagues"

*is President of a region that's smaller than [region=North Korea]*

Trf Submarine Group X wrote:"join the big leagues"

*is President of a region that's smaller than [region=North Korea]*

We keep our puppets stored elsewhere. What's your excuse?

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:We keep our puppets stored elsewhere. What's your excuse?

We don't fill our regions with puppets, but thanks for trying. :)

Trf Submarine Group X wrote:We don't fill our regions with puppets, but thanks for trying. :)

Riiight.

So, I take it you're here for more than banter. To what do we owe the displeasure?

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Riiight.

So, I take it you're here for more than banter. To what do we owe the displeasure?

Can't you tell? I jumped in from The Red Fleet's jump point -- I'm here to raid. It's just that my trigger was off by a couple of hours, so now it's a little awkward.

Trf Submarine Group X wrote:Can't you tell? I jumped in from The Red Fleet's jump point -- I'm here to raid. It's just that my trigger was off by a couple of hours, so now it's a little awkward.

And on a target with an active founder and non-executive delegate, I see - such bravery in the face of reality is standard procedure for the Red Fleet, I'm sure.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:And on a target with an active founder and non-executive delegate, I see - such bravery in the face of reality is standard procedure for the Red Fleet, I'm sure.

Credulity in the face of sarcasm is standard procedure for Libertatem, I'm sure.

Don't these guys have another region to implode?

I find it amusing that they make an article over some friendly debate in Libertatem, but they seem to be ignoring [region=The Leftist Union] collapsing into bickering and chaos... So where's their article in R&B?

:)

Ah, I know what Condealism's new policy is now.

Do nothing and just let all the communists get themselves deleted. Much easier than tag raids, me thinks.

Trf Submarine Group X wrote:Credulity in the face of sarcasm is standard procedure for Libertatem, I'm sure.

Well, you said it with such conviction, and it would have been rude of me to dispute such an earnest claim...

Funkytopia wrote:Don't these guys have another region to implode?

It's top hat and monocle day - if they're here for the festivities, they may partake.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Ah, I know what Condealism's new policy is now.

Do nothing and just let all the communists get themselves deleted. Much easier than tag raids, me thinks.

I thought my policy was "Make enough puppets and put them in enough regions to get my pronouns mixed up."

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Ah, I know what Condealism's new policy is now.

Do nothing and just let all the communists get themselves deleted. Much easier than tag raids, me thinks.

Ha!

I'm off early tonight, guys... I've got to get up early to watch a super-cool rocket launch! Check it out if you want to get up at 6 EST...

http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/9/7521671/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-launch-livestream

Humpheria wrote:Are you in the right place, honey?

What?

Woo! Got to number 6 and I've been on this game for less than a month :D

Poortasia wrote:Woo! Got to number 6 and I've been on this game for less than a month :D

Well, it is a public sector thing, so I personally would be more happy with being at the bottom.

But to each his own.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

Americans wtf are you thinking ?

Please just don't vote for Romney, he is so dumb... If you don't want Hillary to be your next president, just don't vote for him...

Yrellian Confederacy wrote:Please just don't vote for Romney, he is so dumb... If you don't want Hillary to be your next president, just don't vote for him...

Vote for Rand Paul.

Do you guys think we should have a regional currency, like the EU?

Shermaniya Ii wrote:Do you guys think we should have a regional currency, like the EU?

What would that accomplish?

Miencraft wrote:What would that accomplish?

Just a cool roleplaying thing we could add.

Shermaniya Ii wrote:Just a cool roleplaying thing we could add.

But... what would it do?

You're suggesting we mandate that people set their currency to a certain one, yeah?

Probably not a good idea.

G'day. Anyone here a fan of Men at Work? They're one of my favourite Aussie bands, imo.

Shermaniya Ii wrote:Do you guys think we should have a regional currency, like the EU?

Such an idea terrifies me, but I like the way you're thinking. We could use more RP in this region, and something like that would be a good place to start, if it were applied on a voluntary level.

Pevvania wrote:G'day. Anyone here a fan of Men at Work? They're one of my favourite Aussie bands, imo.

I was just thinking about that band this morning. I should have guessed by your motto that you were a fan.

Pevvania wrote:...and something like that would be a good place to start, if it were applied on a voluntary level.

We could make it voluntary for citizens.

Shermaniya Ii wrote:Do you guys think we should have a regional currency, like the EU?

For a second, I thought you meant a single currency shared by the US, Canada, and Mexico! *shudders*

The problem with a shared currency is that it would require a balanced budget by each nation every year. And that means the individual nations giving up some sovereignty over their own internal spending. Thats the reason why the Euro has experienced problems with Greece and others spending huge deficits.

Shermaniya Ii wrote:We could make it voluntary for citizens.

Then I would not participate. My economy is too good for y'all woohoos to drag it down.

Humpheria wrote:Then I would not participate. My economy is too good for y'all woohoos to drag it down.

Ditto. (Minus the weird y'alls and woohoos.)

Everybody's so quiet today. We need another scandal.

I supported Mitt Romney for President in '12. Go!

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:This is your chance to prove it. This article of the Constitution encourages - nay, demands - an unconditional War on Communism. Though, in practice, we have set aside the precedent to "help any nation/region who wishes to pursue this war on communism by means of puppets, traditional warfare, and deception", or "be forced to ally with the fascist nations", we have still not adapted our Constitution to reflect this. As long as that article exists, every leftist ally we make, every fascist region we break, and every step towards democracy we make could be considered a betrayal, even if it is morally right.

Was that a half-reference to The Police? :P

I will speak to the Reaganites on the Board about changes, but I would be willing to support removing the following lines:

"Because we wish to further this cause effectively, the capitalist nations will be forced to ally with the fascist nations. In this light, fascist nations will not be ejected from the region, but we maintain this region is inherently capitalist, not fascist. If a fascist nation comes to power, spams, or otherwise disrupts the stability of our region, he or she will be ejected and banned."

"Nations have a right to form and keep any form of government they so choose, as long as said government does not infringe upon the rights of other Libertatem nations and is in no way allied with the forces of socialism and communism."

This line can be altered or removed (since the term 'radically leftist' is open to interpretation):

"In case of invasion of our region, all radically leftist nations who are WA delegates will be ejected and banned to insure the security and stability of the region. Nations only moderately leftist will be permitted to enter the region without fear of banishment."

Other changes that Funky outlined, such as removing any reference to Empire, are very much a part of the RLP platform and will appear in an upcoming announcement by the RLP. During my final days as President, I actually proposed getting rid of the references to fascism and the like, so I'll be on board with this.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:This cannot stand. If we are to continue that policy, we must make it abundantly clear that the archaic policy of an autocratic past Libertatem has been abolished, both in spirit and writing.

I resent your frequent characterisations of Libertatem as a former autocratic state. It was far more war-oriented than it is now and primarily attracted conservatives. There was no interest in political freedom or democracy; everyone was happy with the status quo. Democratising the region was just moving with the times as more of us demanded liberalisation. I think of it this way: it was once a private company, and under my Presidency it went public.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:I made no such promise.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Not the first time I've been asked this, actually. Needless to say, I support it only so long as it is a war on totalitarian communism. In fact, on totalitarianism in general. And I hope that one day it can finally be won - we'll know when that day has come when our allies, our acquaintances, and all non-combatants throughout NationStates are no longer harassed by ideological purists.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:My administration will recognize both [the War on Communism and the War on Authoritarianism]. Boom.

Yes, you did. You frequently expressed your support for the War, leading Zenya to even proclaim her discomfort that "both major candidates support continuing the War on Communism". Only in the final days of the campaign did you mention an interest in perhaps reforming it - but most of it was a few indirect murmurings, and none of it was official campaign talk. You dismissed Humpheria's warnings that you wanted to end the war, and stressed that you wanted to reform it to "take us beyond the War on Communism". Which really isn't a very revolutionary policy - for several years now, this region has been more than the war. Nobody thinks this region is a purely military one. As far as the people of Libertatem knew, you supported our crusade during the whole campaign.

In fact, the only time you ever directly proposed ending war was hours after the election concluded. Once it was clear that you'd won, when Mien had succeeded and you'd been congratulated, you replied to a comment by Deseret that you "liked the sound" of striking Article VIII. Getting rid of this part of the Constitution has no public support and no public mandate. You won the Presidency based on reforming the war, not ending it. I see this as a great betrayal of the public trust.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Upon doing that, we can decide for ourselves what to do with our military and what our region's destiny is; continuing to take the fight to the fascists and state socialists, as we have for many months against the wishes of Article VIII, is likely what we will continue to do for the foreseeable future.

Provided. It's now your turn, former President, to give us an explanation of why you intend to defend Article VIII even though you allegedly don't support its contents.

We want to preserve Article VIII for a number of reasons. It's partially tradition-based - Libertatem was founded on it, after all. As we've seen in numerous real life examples, once you unravel one part of the Constitution, it opens the door to the whole document being unravelled. Perhaps I would be open to some alterations to the article in regards to the War on Communism if the wording was very careful. But fundamentally I disagree with the principle that we should change something just because foreign powers want us to do so. I don't want this to become a region of appeasers. I think most people in this region support current war policy of siding with moderates and attacking militants/Stalinists. The semantics of the name may seem trivial, to but to many of us they are important in preserving our identity and waging a worthy crusade. "War on Tyranny" sounded vague, spineless and slightly neo-conservative. "War on Authoritarianism" also sounds crap. "War on Bolshevism" would be better, since it better outlines our goals, but there's still something I don't like about it. War on Communism has a very nice, strong ring to it.

And in the context of a common law system, the judicial definitions of "communism" and "socialism" are still very much open to change. I mean, if you think about it, most people don't even know what communism is. To many, state socialism is Communism, and communism is an silly idea in the mind of a dead German madman. We can shed some of our original goals while remaining consistent with the war as defined in the Constitution. I mean, just like at the West in the Cold War - we aggressively opposed the Soviet Union while building partnerships with China and in some cases more moderate Communist regimes.

Also, I think it's rather misguided to believe that we can get a quick end to our War on Communism/Statism/Bolshevism/whatever. I mean, this is a game, after all. I think the only way to end the War would be to totally demoralise the Far-Left into giving up. We have done so to many of their agents before, but such an endeavour would still be very difficult.

We should all relax a bit more about the war anyway. It's fun, and this is a game. We're hardly incurring any economic or social costs by continuing it.

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