Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
lol, what? Went pretty well from our point of view.
You failed to take it permanently.
Inevitable solution to all tag raids:
http://udl.taijitu.org/wfe_index/
Also, they really only do lasting damage if you manage to close embassies, which they didn't.
But when I come back from my vacation, I'll be sure to give you guys a hell of a time. :)
Uh, no they didn't. They were tag raids. We knew the regions had active founders, we expected to be kicked shortly after gaining control, the point was to send a message, and be nuisance.
lern how 2 raid m8
Anyway, more songs :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ_dMaQP7tw
Seriously guys, tell us whats going on with this Kanastan guy. I look in here from time to time and have no idea whats going on with that.
And whats the story on this "TTA" guy? Always wanted to ask that too.
We should create an embassy with Poland. Poles are awesome. I'm part Polish myself and love some kielbasa.
I'll take questions. I'm probably the only one here who knows Kan well. If you want answers (and or conversation) my TG box is open..........
I'm always down for more music, but you folks need some cultured music. How about some Dmitri Shostakovich?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZycHParRYi8
Festive Overture in A major, Op. 96. Written for the 37th anniversary of the October Revolution.
How bout no. And you should love this much much better song:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-0kcet4aPpQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbxgYlcNxE8
Tchaikovsky, biches
I do like Pink Floyd, but even putting politics aside, Festive Overture is a great piece of music! I loved it well before I learned what it was written for. The low brass at 4:05 are just sublime!
Quick note for the record guys:
Kanatistan is an entirely separate and unrelated matter from Shermaniya's deletion.
Perhaps you're right, I didn't look. See, I ditched music education at my school in 4th grade 3 days in. Now I'm a chill hippy guitarist though so ya
Tchaikovsky is one of my favs
Music? How about Working Class Hero?
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU[/url]
Or if you're like me and prefer the Green Day version:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPPgeDhGzKY[/url]
Can't beat Tchaikovsky. Can you imagine how hard it would be to launch cannons during the performance in the 1800s?
Well maybe not that hard. BUT LOUD.
You even managed to link the only recording of this that matters - Dorati and the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra, University of Minnesota Brass Band, West Point Artillery, and L. Spelman Rockefeller Carillon. I suppose even a broken clock is right twice a day, huh? :)
We prefer the term "vinyl guys". Not latex. That's GGR.
You might like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r4_93_tCH9M
Haw haw very funny.
Considering it very likely wasn't performed as Tchaikovsky originally scored it while he was alive (it's doubtful that artillery was used until recent performances), I doubt it was very loud at all.
You won't find any fundamentalist Christians among us. Well at least only TTA.
Try The Alliance Of Protestant Nations. Kudos from me if you raid them.
Before or after the invention of the phonograph? My dates are whack.
The first recording was made on three 78rpm discs in 1916, 23 years after Tchaikovsky died. The Dorati recording that you linked, made in 1954, dubbed in the carillon and artillery fire (it wasn't performed that way live).
I don't know that there is a live recording of the piece that is completely faithful to the score. But regardless of recordings, it is almost certain that Tchaikovsky did not hear the piece performed exactly as he wrote it during his lifetime, due to the challenges of lining up the artillery fire and performing it in an area close to church towers for the bells.
Excuse me to go watch mentalist reruns all night. TG me if you would like.
Hmm interesting. Clears up that mystery.
Anyway, I'm off for the night. 11:20 on the west coast. Don't kill yourselves folks.
I wish there was a place where it kept track
Of the results from all your past issues 🚦
Post self-deleted by Kanatistan.
Sherm shared his fantasies about bombing/shooting up a school, then when he was questioned about this he pretended he'd been hacked by you. He had not, and was promptly deleted by the mods for threatening to commit a serious crime.
Post self-deleted by Kanatistan.
Post self-deleted by Kanatistan.
Post self-deleted by Kanatistan.
Lied, did it anyway.
hi i am new
Post self-deleted by Kanatistan.
Post self-deleted by Kanatistan.
Sherm was "locally hacked"
Locally hacked?
How would you know?
Because I've been speaking with him outside of the game.
And did he just tell you he was, or did you see evidence of it?
Longish story. And I don't got time:
Don't you think that Regan Red nation could be a puppet ?
The account had been recreated like 3 days ago and don't even say hello or anything...
Perhaps. He was rather active a while ago, though, and I'm not sure whose puppet he could be.
I hope Roads is okay...
Ya..we miss much roads.
Hey everyone, if you haven't seen this video already you should really check it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
It's a very humorous look at one of law enforcements must unjust practices.
This is hilarious...
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=290189
So in 1933 the U.S. Supreme Court declared a minimum wage illegal and then allowed it after a 1938 ruling. Any reasons why this came to be?
Someone put a little too much sugar in their cereal.
Another petty attempt by the commies failed in the Republic Of Conservadom.
They whine when we are not absolutely heartbroken because they aimlessly attack inactive miniregions that have embassies with us. Note to the Communists: if you want us to actually care about your little tirades, how about you attack a region that has more active people than just a founder that isn't even a resident of the region any more.
Counted 4 or 5 fallacies, and I'm only two paragraphs in! Can't wait to debunk this :)
True, they don't seem to be going for gold, but I have to give "The Leftist Union", whom I have not heard of before, some credit for trying to pick up the slack against us where North Korea and Das Kommune have failed. At least they're trying to recoup Bolshevik losses, which can't be said for their allies.
I'd give them at least a sticker for trying.
Can it be a gold star?
Nah, I don't think they tried hard enough for that. I think a silver circle would suffice.
I advise the President or FOunder to invoke DOOR in the Libertatem v. Kanatistan case as no one appears willing to represent him, thus denying him the possibility of a trial.
So, what, just give him the boot?
Came here to debunk the "interesting" article on anarcho-capitalism.
Anarcho-capitalism, what it is and why do we fight it?
Because you're opposed to liberty?
What is anarcho-capitalism?
Anarcho-capitalism is a political ''philosophy'' which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual private property and open, unregulated, oppressive markets. Anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of statute, society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Capital is accumulated without any regulation. Anarcho-capitalists are worse enemies than Neo-Liberals.
This is mostly correct. But from a philosophical point of view, anarcho-capitalists seek to create a society that maximises self-ownership, which all rights are derived from. This can only been achieved when individual self-owners are free to own themselves, which cannot occur if there is a state/monopoly on force/dominant coercive power.
And to the point that anarcho-capitalists "trust" the discipline of the market, we trust the market because the market, essentially, is us. It's people. It's thousands, millions, billions of different voices and individuals acting in their own self-interest, which history and evidence tells us has uplifted mankind into levels of prosperity never seen before in the times of socialism and feudalism (both forms of hierarchical or collectivist slavery).
Polls conducted showed that the majority of these Anarcho-Capitalists were dominantly male, white, rich kids.
We can determine that so-called Anarcho-Capitalists are overwhelmingly young, American, White males in school. An assumption that can be made is that since they are full time students, they likely dont work as well. We pretty much already knew this. The ideology is rarely espoused by anyone outside the US or ethnic minority.
In other words, people whove usually never had to work a day in their lives, nor even felt what it was like to experience racism. The very things they defend.
First of all, you have not provided a source for your claims. I could just as easily point to the fact that most communists and socialists are old white men, but that's not a good argument for why communism/socialism is bad. It's not surprising that you've decided to go for ad hominems, though, because it betrays the weaknesses in your argument. For what little it's worth, I am - philosophically - an anarchist, despite the fact that I'm an adult, "working class", as you'd probably call it, and my grandfather was black. But again, this is totally irrelevant to any philosophical debate.
The ability to live off other peoples labour because they own the means of production.
Well, I just work in a shop while trying to graduate college. But I don't believe I'm being exploited. My relationship with my boss is mutually beneficial. I work the tools, supplies, equipment and building he has provided for me, and he pays me a wage so that I do not have to postpone consumption or contribute to any other parts of the production process. I have to save, build and invest nothing. In exchange for using someone else's building, tooling or other equipment, clientele, and suppliers, all I have to do is work and get paid. I exploit the "evil capitalist" at least as much as the "evil capitalist" exploits me.
And supporting the abolishment of equal rights for all races and sexes.
Very bad straw man. You really haven't done much research, have you? Anarcho-capitalism is, as I stated previously, built upon the idea of self-ownership, which presumes all individual human beings are equally free (children are a slight exception, and are (according to Rothbardian rights theory) under "trustee-ownership" by the parents until they reach adulthood). Races and sexes have nothing to do with it. Anarcho-capitalism is colorblind and genderblind. Self-ownership is equally possessed by all human beings.
In nationstates, these morons are incarnate in Libertatem,
Ad hominem, tut tut. Your argument is getting weaker by the sentence.
the worst amalgamation of anarcho-capitalist and fascist ideologies.
More lies and straw men. Libertatem was created as a broad alliance between anti-communists, conservatives, and libertarians in August 2012. Since then we have abolished any ties to far-right regions and prioritised political multi-multiculturalism over assimilation. Nevertheless, most of our residents are libertarians, a plurality of whom I'd say are ancaps, with the rest being minarchists, objectivists, Nozickians, and so forth. Aside from that, we have a handful of conservatives, and some socialists. We do not, as a region, advocate any particular political ideology aside from general anti-statism/anti-Bolshevism. I do not know why you'd conflate us with fascists - fascism is one of the more vile socialist ideologies. Its roots are in socialism and it still advocates socialism, and in some cases corporatism. Historically the fascist states were often closely aligned with the socialist elite, and executed universally collectivist economic and social policies while in power very similar to that of the Stalinist regimes of the 20th Century. Mussolini's government, for example, boasted about nationalising 75% of the economy. Nazi Germany was heavily corporatised, exploiting private property via total government control and regulation for the goals of the Nazi Party.
But you didn't know any of this, did you?
There have been certain other regions that have co-operated with them, but none as notable as The communist bloc, a region so reactionary it is completely anti-socialist, practically an openly anarcho-capitalist region.
We've only worked with TCB a couple of times, but our partnership has now ended. You're not seriously calling them ancaps? Can you not make a single argument without lying through your teeth?
Our issue with it?
Liberty doesn't provide for muh feels?
Essentially we must consider the concept of transubstantiation of Marxist theory into nationstates. Class struggle is present in all aspects of nationstates. Contradictions are the basis of nationstates society. The classist libertarian anarchists and the rational Marxist-Leninist sphere. These two factions are in constant contradiction with one another.
We are to be tolerant, yes; however, tolerance of intolerance is nonetheless intolerance. We cannot tolerate the oppressive anarcho-capitalists as they are intolerant of the proletariat.
Libertarianism is the only ideology that empowers the proletariat. From a practical point of view, free markets have an undeniable track record of uplifting people out of poverty. The World Bank has estimated that 75% of income gains to the bottom 40% of incomes in the past 30 years around the world have come from economic growth. (But the World Bank is just another biased right-wing think tank, amiright?) From a philosophical level, free markets empower the worker as a rational economic actor and a self-owner. They give him or her the choice to participate in markets and to own property in order to maximise his or her individual goals. Workers are not at the mercy of corporations and governments because there is no coercive power in a voluntaryist society. Business cannot function without labour. Labour cannot function without business. In a society free of monopolised force, labour and capital are on an equal playing field, and must voluntarily cooperate to reach their goals. The greatest virtue of the contract is that no agreement is ever made without it benefiting both parties. Any hierarchies in the marketplace are mutually beneficial and voluntary, which means they're not really hierarchies, but just contractual economic relationships. Socialism, either by collective "democratic" or direct state control, necessarily means the enslavement of the "proletariat", and everyone else for that matter. It substitutes individual autonomy and self-ownership for the wills of others. So it cannot possibly be supportive of workers' rights, because every individual worker has his own goals and plans, and dissolving these means dissolving his choices in the marketplace.
To implement Marxism-Leninism into nationstates we must consider historical determinism as Marx set it.
There are four major objections and contradictions:
1) It ignores historical development; that after a certain period of time the conditions of fair competition break down, and some companies will continue with great advantages over others despite their no longer "deserving" it. There will always be efficiency gains to be made from economies of scale, but we can equally argue that there are numerous economic disadvantages to the build up of monopoly and unfair competition. Anyone who takes an undergraduate course in microeconomics could build up the arguments from here.
Thus, my ability to freely choose my form of work of employment will be severely curtailed if I am born a significant amount of time after the market has been instituted. There is no sense in which I choose my life conditions either, so this is clearly not free, at least for me.
Of course, certain groups and interests have advantages over others in even the freest society, either due to greater success than others or being in the market for longer or whatever. Indeed, market forces often do trump individual wants, but there is nothing that can be done about this aside from adapting to circumstances, in the same way that we cannot (yet) control the laws of physics or the weather. This is a fact of life that libertarians (and libertarians alone, apparently) accept. Trying to subvert the control of markets in favour of the control of the state or collectivist forces is not only paradoxical but very destructive. Despite the fact that greater forces are sometimes at work, in a free society, at least we would have some choice in the middle of it, rather than no choice under a statist or collectivist society.
I believe, though, that the problems of inequality and lack of resources would disappear, eventually, in a free society, because market and scientific forces would ultimately reach the point where supply is in a permanent state of post-scarcity, absolving all exchangeable value. Free markets would achieve this. Hierarchical economic control would not.
2) There is no reason why economics and market pressures should dictate how a society is run. Libertarians conceive liberty in terms of one's ability to be an effective market player, thus liberty is increased the more the market dominates social life. But any liberal (libertarians are not ultimately liberals in my opinion, but something else) could see that a truly free and fulfilling society is a plural society, where economic imperatives are just one weave in the fabric of life and are not the whole of it.
The idea that one should have full claim on one's labour is not a communist one, but a libertarian one. A society based around the full compensation for work would be a capitalist society, even as capitalism in reality always fails to live up to its ideal. Indeed, a society where the strong, healthy and most capable take the most when they work the most, and the old, weak and sick take less because they cannot work, is a perfectly vile and disgusting society. That is why we say "...to each according to need", because the fulfilment of need is key to a happy and flourishing - and free - society.
For the last bloody time - libertarianism is based on self-ownership! We conceive liberty as doing what you want as long as you're not hurting anyone else. Recognising the importance of good economic policy in society is hardly putting it on a pedestal. Surely this is more rational than pretending that economic laws don't exist?
3) Every commodity has a two-fold value contained in it. It has a use-value and an exchange value which are in contradiction with each other. Use-values vary wildly from commodity to commodity, while exchange-value is usually uniform and qualitatively identical. A commodities use -value is what you do with it, how you experience it. The exchange-value can be described as what you have to pay for it, so how much is it? This how much affects our ability to obtain and utilize the use-values we want or need to have.
The exchange-value does not dominate, but can affect the creation of use-values. David Harvey uses the example of a house. We want to have a particular experience with a house, but we may not have all the money needed to have everything we want in it. That money (exchange-value) is made up of labour costs, raw materials, constant capital, and a portion for profit. The exchange-value of the house has affected our ability to create a use-value.
Houses are created for their exchange-value; the only thing the creator is interested in is what exchange-value he can get for it. The actual creation of a use-value is a means to that end. The builders are looking for a potential exchange-value not to fulfill a desired use-value. Exchange-value takes the drivers seat in the creation of housing, a human need.
During the housing boom people could not get a hold of the use-value of a home without taking on a huge debt. Once the housing bubble popped those houses became worth less than the amount of money that was paid out to obtain them. This is called a mortgage being underwater and a lot of houses are this way right now as a result. Many of those people could no longer afford their homes, so they ended up losing them when payments were not made. The reckless pursuit of exchange-value eventually destroyed the ability of people to obtain and then eventually maintain the ownership of the homes use-value. When we take into consideration the phenomenon of housing speculation we begin to see how far the exchange-value of a house gets from its use-value, and how much it comes into contradiction with it.
The house is no longer about the use it has or the need it can fulfill, its about how much exchange value can be obtained for it.
4) The exchange-value is a measure of value, the how much its worth requires a measure. That measure is called money. Money serves several functions, as a measure of value, a store of value and as a means of commodity circulation. How does it proliferate in the political and economic sphere and how does it seem to make the economic world go round?
Money is the means by which someone can make the claim on the product of someone elses labour which is used to produce the goods and services of society. Capitalism is a society in which we are heavily reliant on other peoples labour for the production of the things we need. All things in society are produced by someone somewhere where labour is exchanged for money. It is the social value of all that activity of all that labouring, that underpins what it is that money represents. Thus, value is the social relations between all the labouring activities of the globe.
This social relation is invisible to us because we dont see each other, we see our products instead. This relation creates moral and ethical values that have real objective consequences. Value is what makes some commodities cost more than others. These differences in values have nothing to do with their character as use-values (other than the fact that they must all be useful to someone somewhere). It does have everything to do with the social labour involved in their production.
This value is invisible, but it needs a physical existence in order to be used. That physical existence is money. Money is the material manifestation of value and is a representation of that value. In money there is a gap between its physical representation and the social value it represents. Harvey uses the example of a map. It can do a good job of encapsulating the relative value of social labour in some respects, but in others it fails to do so, even misrepresenting it. This is just like the map. It can show you the way through a mountain, but can never describe everything about the passage, or about how hard it is to climb. This disconnection between money and the value it represents is the second contradiction of capital were talking about.
Money is inseparable from, but distinct from the social value that makes up its value. Money hides the immaterial social labour (value) behind its material form. What we see is the representation of money and not the reality of that value which money represents. This causes us to end up interacting and believing in something that is false. Just as we cant see social labour in a commodity we cannot see the nature of social labour in the money that represents it. It is important to note that money cannot be separated from the value it represents. Value cannot exist as an immaterial social relation without money, because the commodity exchanges it facilitates give it this power. This value cannot exist without the physical representation of it and the act of exchange. Money and value are in a dialectical relationship.
I think this block of text can really be summarised by "value is derived from labor". Which is patently silly. The labor theory of value really is the Marxian equivalent of the Keynesian broken window theory, but in this case it's just ridiculous enough to alienate the entire school of economics from ever gaining a place in the mainstream. It's not even difficult to debunk, which really says a lot about the intellectual integrity of Marxists. If value was derived exclusively from labor, then a worker digging a hole using a spoon deserves more compensation than a drill operator who's dug a hole in a much quicker span of time. Obviously, this scenario is ridiculous. Common-sense economics tells us that value is subjective, built in the individual wills of the consumer, which in turn influences supply and demand. Money is totally necessary in any economy, because it solves the problems of barter systems (such as the retention of value and double incidence of wants problems) and reflects value in the form of price signals, allowing individuals to make rational decisions best on their self-interest.
Handy video on the barter system and why money is necessary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkyBnaYCUhw
There, I refuted your argument...For Marx's sake, you're stupid...
You have to make an order, I sign as Chairman, he gets the boot.
Then I hereby invoke DOOR upon Kanatistan to remove him from Libertatem.
No you didn't.
No. No you didn't. I'll proceed to continue demolishing your "argument" tomorrow, but before then I'll point out how sad it is that you have to censor my argument on your RMB. Can't let the "common folk" be exposed to opposing viewpoints, eh? Restricting freedom of speech and banning dissidents - such liberty!
And in typing your response you betrayed an entirely different writing style to the dispatch you posted, which leads me to believe that you copy and pasted most of it. Jolly well done at understanding basic computer skills, though!
In fact, the entire dispatch felt like it was written by V Ming.
Is Marx the communist god or something like that? That's kinda funny.
I, Humpheria, Chairman of the Board, on the Behalf of the Board, approve this decision.
*grumbles about Brits*
So do we have our board members?
Sheaah, brah.
Hold up there boss! DOOR is very explicit about these matters:
The Founder, President or other designated official may eject and ban any nation, that is not a citizen or former citizen, deemed an enemy combatant.
I can't read this without envisioning some snobby British person with a suit, tophat, monocle, and stupid mustache drinking tea, gripping the handle with only his thumb and forefinger while his small finger is extended.
I'm not sure if I ever made him a citizen; I know I did for Sherm and that other guy, but not him, I don't think.
Maybe.
I dunno.
Try mixing that mental image with that of an Australian who once lived in America :P
I don't think you did. I didn't count his vote in the Presidential, and neither did Yrellian, which would lead me to believe that we're good.
Who are they?
*Mind blown*
Ask the Humpster.
Anyways, I'm certain I never officially made Kanatistan a citizen, or I would have announced it officially and publicly, which never happened.
Hey hump, who are the board members?
Well, he's gone now so it's done now
Seat One: Pevvania (RLP)
Seat Two: Humpheria (RLP)
Seat Three: Actum (I don't know, I think it is a new one-person party [Actum, please specify])
Seat Four: Right-winged nation (RLP)
Seat Five: Neo-Confederate States of America (RLP)
Can anybody say 'RLP'?
Can anybody say "one-party government system'?
Nope.
Yeah, me neither.
Sounds too complex....
But that's statist!
Kanatistan seems to be having a bit of a breakdown.
I forgot I switched to the RLP a little while back. Oh yeah.
#RLPPLOTTING #THETERRORBEGINS
Don't ban this puppet yet. I want to sEe your reasoning behind your statement.
Back in the days of old (ca. 2012 Libertatem) I was in the Right Party, which controlled most of the government before some angry denizens of Libertatem attempted to disband the bloody thing. What a great party that was.
Post self-deleted by Anatis.
Hello everyone!
Slightly suspicious
I second that.
I actually was here before, I just forgot the name of my nation. Maybe that just makes you more suspicious, but hey, what can I do about that.
Fair enough
Going to the Leftist Union and shouting that you hate all Capitalists and that Libertarianism was a product of the bourgeoise
...No.
I thought my time was done. But there is a time when all of us have a purpose again. A time all of us can shine and with a one-party system forming it is time to go back in time. To my time.
I really do hate capitalism and I believe Libertarianism is a product of the bourgeoisie. You don't catch on quick do you?
Time for more banjection. *readies banjection catapult*
I'm very tempted to say "remove kebab" now.
They don't.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.