Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Why? What's going on?

[nation=short]The Amarican Empire[/nation] decided to resign from the Board effective Sunday. The Constitution mandates a two-day period for Board Elections, and due to the facts that there are no challengers and Amarican will resign on Sunday, it looks like I'll have no choice but to appoint RWN.

Umkhonto we Sizwe

For those who champion Nelson Mandela. Look this up.

Northern Prussia wrote:Umkhonto we Sizwe

For those who champion Nelson Mandela. Look this up.

We know.

He's a terrorisita

Minnesota is beautiful..

Muh Roads wrote:Minnesota is beautiful..

That I can agree

Pevvania wrote:[nation=short]The Amarican Empire[/nation] decided to resign from the Board effective Sunday. The Constitution mandates a two-day period for Board Elections, and due to the facts that there are no challengers and Amarican will resign on Sunday, it looks like I'll have no choice but to appoint RWN.

So he's resigning because everyone was hating on him for talking smack about the REATO in another region? I don't really think those are appropriate grounds to resign, it seems really stupid actually. Just an attempt to save face or something I guess. Whatever. It's especially stupid since this term ends in less than 2 weeks. I don't get this.

I would challenge RWN, but I don't know.

Aw hell, I challenge RWN for seat 3. My old seat. I hope he kept it warm for me, it's time to take it back.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:So he's resigning because everyone was hating on him for talking smack about the REATO in another region? I don't really think those are appropriate grounds to resign, it seems really stupid actually. Just an attempt to save face or something I guess. Whatever. It's especially stupid since this term ends in less than 2 weeks. I don't get this.

I would challenge RWN, but I don't know.

Actually, he decided to resign for reasons that I do not know, and then after that it was brought to light that he had been talking about us. But yeah, I don't understand why he'd resign two weeks before his term ends anyway.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Aw hell, I challenge RWN for seat 3. My old seat. I hope he kept it warm for me, it's time to take it back.

Alrighty, I'll put up a poll soon.

Pevvania wrote:Actually, he decided to resign for reasons that I do not know, and then after that it was brought to light that he had been talking about us. But yeah, I don't understand why he'd resign two weeks before his term ends anyway.

Well I just went about 2 days back on the RMB and found nothing about him saying he was resigning and assumed it was about when you called him out on his RMB posts in other regions

The Amarican Empire wrote:Attention to all of Libertatem I announce my resignation from the board. This resignation will be effective starting Sunday.

I thank the people for entrusting me in this office and my fellow board members for their service to the region.

I am American and I approve this message. Paid for by Amarican2014PAC

Ooh, RRRG is running against me. This should be fun and I really do mean that

Well I guess I missed that... and I still can't find it. Oh well.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Well I guess I missed that... and I still can't find it. Oh well.

Best of luck to ya

Anyone remember the attempted invasion of Libertatem by The Federal Islands 2? You guys deserve a lot of credit for defending it when I was away.

Heh, yeah. If they hadn't engaged in a WA multiing scheme, they might still be standing today. Cheaters never win.

Both candidates for Seat 3 are good, but with the informal dissolution of the MPA, I'll vote for the RLP candidate.

I very strongly support [nation=short]Right-Winged Nation[/nation]. His experience in the region coupled with his principled positions on the role of government make him the most exciting Board candidate in months. He believes in a strong regional defense and less government. I urge you all to vote for him.

Pevvania wrote:Anyone remember the attempted invasion of Libertatem by The Federal Islands 2? You guys deserve a lot of credit for defending it when I was away.

They were overrun by rabbits lol

Muh Roads wrote:They were overrun by rabbits lol

Teehee

Vote RRRG for an end to the RLP Majority Oligarchy that has plagued this region....

But seriously, Vote RRRG

I resigned because I lost hope in trying to change Libertatem for the better.

The Amarican Empire wrote:I resigned because I lost hope in trying to change Libertatem for the better.

*shakes head*

The Amarican Empire wrote:I resigned because I lost hope in trying to change Libertatem for the better.

No offense, but I never saw you doing anything to change it. You only started being vocal about your populism a few days ago and on another region's RMB. Of the 14 laws and constitutional amendments passed since October 2013, all fourteen were authored by members of the RLP, and I have authored 9 of them. Whatever your thoughts on the party, we're actually doing things to change the region and make it better, while the only thing the MPA/populists do is complain. I think the only legislative proposal that the left wing in this region has ever made was the proposed new constitution back in October that failed to garner any broad support whatsoever. If you guys actually want to start winning, you should do things.

What's also ironic about the populists in this region is that they've supported every single RLP bill put on the floor.

The Minority only talks. I am sorry but we have 3 MPA people on the board yet the only thing we have voted on was the Tta trial. After that most of the board went silent or moved all attention to COIN.

Pevvania wrote:What's also ironic about the populists in this region is that they've supported every single RLP bill put on the floor.

...Because they aren't bad...

The RLP isn't the bad guys. There are just certain things that need to be changed that the RLP isn't changing.

The Amarican Empire wrote:The Minority only talks. I am sorry but we have 3 MPA people on the board yet the only thing we have voted on was the Tta trial. After that most of the board went silent or moved all attention to COIN.

That's exactly what I knew would happen. You guys wondered why you only gained support once you got loud. I agree with Pev. if you guys wanted change, you could have done it. And I will remind you, that you caucused with the RLP for multiple terms, you just recently switched sides.

Pevvania wrote:Whatever your thoughts on the party, we're actually doing things to change the region and make it better

You are trying to change it yes. For the better? Yes. But there are some parts you just are not willing to change simply because of "Tradition"

Pevvania wrote:only thing the MPA/populists do is complain.

I would love to do something...but can I? No...I'm banned. If I wasn't banned I would've been running in every election I could.

At least unlike SOME people I speak about this region ON the regional RMB instead of complaining behind your backs.

Humpheria wrote:That's exactly what I knew would happen. You guys wondered why you only gained support once you got loud. I agree with Pev. if you guys wanted change, you could have done it. And I will remind you, that you caucused with the RLP for multiple terms, you just recently switched sides.

...

I would again love to promote change, but I can't until the ban list changes.

Humpheria wrote:That's exactly what I knew would happen. You guys wondered why you only gained support once you got loud. I agree with Pev. if you guys wanted change, you could have done it. And I will remind you, that you caucused with the RLP for multiple terms, you just recently switched sides.

maybe things would have been better if I stayed within RLP influence but who knows.

The Amarican Empire wrote:The Minority only talks. I am sorry but we have 3 MPA people on the board yet the only thing we have voted on was the Tta trial. After that most of the board went silent or moved all attention to COIN.

I dont believe the LP is a part of the MPA. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Albenia wrote:You are trying to change it yes. For the better? Yes. But there are some parts you just are not willing to change simply because of "Tradition"

I would love to do something...but can I? No...I'm banned. If I wasn't banned I would've been running in every election I could.

At least unlike SOME people I speak about this region ON the regional RMB instead of complaining behind your backs.

I'm not stopping the war because of tradition. I'm not stopping it because it is Constitutionally mandated and continues to yield better and better results every month.

Pevvania wrote:I dont believe the LP is a part of the MPA. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not stopping the war because of tradition. I'm not stopping it because it is Constitutionally mandated and continues to yield better and better results every month.

You can amend a constitution. It is a pointless war that needs to be stopped. Lets use your terms. The nations in those Authoritarian regions are there VOLUNTARILY. They just want to be in those regions. They don't want us coming in to "Liberate them"

I mean....It's not just the war that's an Issue in the constitution.

In the Laws of Libertatem factbook. The dispatch labeled "Constitution of Libertatem" is updated with amendments right?

I voted RRRG for his expierence.

Albenia wrote:You can amend a constitution. It is a pointless war that needs to be stopped. Lets use your terms. The nations in those Authoritarian regions are there VOLUNTARILY. They just want to be in those regions. They don't want us coming in to "Liberate them"

No it is not. We are fighting for freedom and against imperialism. I realise that you'd rather see countless regions fall under the banner of The Red Fleet than have us fight them, but the vast majority of us do not agree with you. Even if you could somehow change that and amend the Constitution, there would still be many of us organising under the name of Libertatem to expel the forces of totalitarianism from NationStates. And if you outlawed participation in military activities, then that would be grounds for a revolution.

Pevvania wrote:No it is not. We are fighting for freedom and against imperialism. I realise that you'd rather see countless regions fall under the banner of The Red Fleet than have us fight them, but the vast majority of us do not agree with you. Even if you could somehow change that and amend the Constitution, there would still be many of us organising under the name of Libertatem to expel the forces of totalitarianism from NationStates. And if you outlawed participation in military activities, then that would be grounds for a revolution.

.....

Albenia wrote:.....

What does that even mean?

Humpheria wrote:What does that even mean?

I honestly don't know. I just use as a response to let people know I've read there stuff, but really have nothing to say against it.

Let the Libertatem revolution continue.

LIKE I SAID BELOW. THE WAR IS NOT THE ONLY BAD PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Article VII Rights

Section I

Subsection VII

[B]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. The founder retains the power to make exceptions for this rule.[/B]

Article VIII Anti-Communism

Section I

Subsection III

Citizens of Liberosia,

All forms of totalitarianism in our country have been abolished. The private sector makes a massive majority of our economy and we are thriving as a nation. However, there still exists nations dedicated to government power, and although the game of NationStates does not allow them to progress to their natural state of totalitarianism, we know from history that this ideology is the cause of much suffering and death. In this light, The Confederacy of Liberosia hereby declares war on communism. We will help any nation/region who wishes to pursue this war on communism by means of puppets, traditional warfare, and deception. This all in the name of a free people trying to pursue a free market. [B]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.[/B] Nations only moderately leftist will be permitted to enter the region without fear of banishment. 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. I[B]f a fascist nation comes to power[/B], spams, or otherwise disrupts the stability of our region, [B]he or she will be ejected and banned.[/B] The Confederacy of Liberosia notes that it will be shunned by even capitalist regions/nations. It could encounter hostility from a variety of different regions. It is doubtful that our region will grow at the same rate as other more neutral regions. We will most probably remain stagnate. We will encounter ridicule, and mockery. However, we will shoulder all of these. To any nation reading this, if you are anti-communist, if you believe in free people and free markets, if you don't want to see the communists take power now or ever, you have a home in Libertatem.

Thank you

Northern Prussia wrote:Let the Libertatem revolution continue.

What revolution?

Northern Prussia wrote:Let the Libertatem revolution continue.

Hell yeah!

Political question: why do modern conservatives complain so much about people who don't pay any taxes? I thought the conservative position was to reduce taxes for everyone?

Pevvania wrote:Hell yeah!

Political question: why do modern conservatives complain so much about people who don't pay any taxes? I thought the conservative position was to reduce taxes for everyone?

Viva la revolucion!

Pev, the modern conservatives are stuck in the false dichotomy that modern liberals are in. The reduction of government and taxes exists in the context of equality and a fundamental sense of collectivism.

TTA, you want to lead a region without understanding it's laws. You realize that the underlined section says, in time of invasion. The founder has the ability to strike laws from the constitution in time of invasion. And Article VII Section I Subsection VII gives the founder the power to make exceptions. Article VIII Section I Subsection III is the founder's speech, thus it is the founder's word. So it can be read as the founder making an exception. Honestly.

Humpheria wrote:TTA, you want to lead a region without understanding it's laws. You realize that the underlined section says, in time of invasion. The founder has the ability to strike laws from the constitution in time of invasion. And Article VII Section I Subsection VII gives the founder the power to make exceptions. Article VIII Section I Subsection III is the founder's speech, thus it is the founder's word. So it can be read as the founder making an exception. Honestly.

I know this completely well. It's called Favoritism from the founder and ability to ban those you disagree with.

Humpheria wrote:TTA, you want to lead a region without understanding it's laws. You realize that the underlined section says, in time of invasion. The founder has the ability to strike laws from the constitution in time of invasion. And Article VII Section I Subsection VII gives the founder the power to make exceptions. Article VIII Section I Subsection III is the founder's speech, thus it is the founder's word. So it can be read as the founder making an exception. Honestly.

Thank you Humpheria. It is also important to remember the context of Article VIII and its importance to the region. It was not meant as an explicit law for Libertatem, rather a personal declaration that I transcribed into the constitution to carry the spirit of my mission to the region I founded. In this sense, the intent of Article VIII is anti communism for the region; it sets up a fundamental ideology for the region, but it is open to interpretation by residents (see the critique of nations like Lack).

Invasions should not have the ability to change constitution or give cause to ban people who disagree with you.

I understand the laws. That's why I want them changed.

Albenia wrote:I know this completely well. It's called Favoritism from the founder and ability to ban those you disagree with.

Whether you agree with the principle or not, it is how it was written. Whether we are a libertarian region or not, the way NS is set up, Liberosia is all powerful, so the constitution reflects that concept on necessary precepts.

Albenia wrote:Invasions should not have the ability to change constitution or give cause to ban people who disagree with you.

I understand the laws. That's why I want them changed.

An invasion constitutes an emergency situation; if destruction is imminent, or threats exist, then unilateral action may be the only way to preserve the region.

Liberosia wrote:Viva la revolucion!

Pev, the modern conservatives are stuck in the false dichotomy that modern liberals are in. The reduction of government and taxes exists in the context of equality and a fundamental sense of collectivism.

Nice to see you 'round here, Mister Founder.

You're certainly right. Interesting article about the subject here: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/ronald-reagan-didnt-share-the-gops-47-percent-problem/250996/

Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann all seem to have a problem with the poor not paying taxes while actively pushing for higher income rate cuts. Reagan fundamentally disagreed - and was instrumental in creating "the 47%" as we know it today.

Liberosia wrote:Thank you Humpheria. It is also important to remember the context of Article VIII and its importance to the region. It was not meant as an explicit law for Libertatem, rather a personal declaration that I transcribed into the constitution to carry the spirit of my mission to the region I founded. In this sense, the intent of Article VIII is anti communism for the region; it sets up a fundamental ideology for the region, but it is open to interpretation by residents (see the critique of nations like Lack).

I think Lack has formulated the most intelligent and level-headed critique of the War. But I think the problem with it is that he's trying to transfer ethical and philosophical values from the real world to NationStates, which is misguided, in my opinion.

You know, this may sound simple minded, but if there was a ten percent consumer tax everything rather than taking such a large cut from people's pay checks, we could be in a much better state.

Pevvania wrote:Nice to see you 'round here, Mister Founder.

You're certainly right. Interesting article about the subject here: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/ronald-reagan-didnt-share-the-gops-47-percent-problem/250996/

Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann all seem to have a problem with the poor not paying taxes while actively pushing for higher income rate cuts. Reagan fundamentally disagreed - and was instrumental in creating "the 47%" as we know it today.

Thanks, Pev.

The proverbial leg breaking and crutch that is the government's relationship to the poor illustrates the libertarian's proper course of action. Regulation on small business, production taxes, and especially the minimum wage need to be removed before we eliminate welfare for the lower classes. Reform, like under Clinton et al. is fine, but it really didn't get rid of the welfare, just made it more efficient. I propose we focus on eliminating the regulatory aspects of government first, then direct taxes.

Pevvania wrote:I think Lack has formulated the most intelligent and level-headed critique of the War. But I think the problem with it is that he's trying to transfer ethical and philosophical values from the real world to NationStates, which is misguided, in my opinion.

I disagree, Mr. President. It's exactly what I did when I started this operation.

Liberosia wrote:Thanks, Pev.

The proverbial leg breaking and crutch that is the government's relationship to the poor illustrates the libertarian's proper course of action. Regulation on small business, production taxes, and especially the minimum wage need to be removed before we eliminate welfare for the lower classes. Reform, like under Clinton et al. is fine, but it really didn't get rid of the welfare, just made it more efficient. I propose we focus on eliminating the regulatory aspects of government first, then direct taxes.

Minimum wage does need to be eliminated, businesses know how much to pay their employees to be efficient. Government dictating 15 dollars an hour for flipping burgers should not be up to them

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Minimum wage does need to be eliminated, businesses know how much to pay their employees to be efficient. Government dictating 15 dollars an hour for flipping burgers should not be up to them

^yes

Personally, all government disgusts me. However, to rectify some of the damage done by the Fed and company, welfare for the lower classes needs to remain until we restore the markets to equilibrium.

Liberosia wrote:Thanks, Pev.

The proverbial leg breaking and crutch that is the government's relationship to the poor illustrates the libertarian's proper course of action. Regulation on small business, production taxes, and especially the minimum wage need to be removed before we eliminate welfare for the lower classes. Reform, like under Clinton et al. is fine, but it really didn't get rid of the welfare, just made it more efficient. I propose we focus on eliminating the regulatory aspects of government first, then direct taxes.

Why not do both? Obviously, it'll take a long time to get rid of welfare. I agree that I'd tackle regulation before taxes and the welfare state - one study found that federal regulations have made America 75% poorer (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjseater/regulationandgrowth.pdf). But there is a lot of waste to cut, and according to the CBO eliminating income tax altogether for the bottom 80% of Americans (i.e. households making under $100,000 a year) would only create a revenue shortfall of $96 billion. I think the Clinton welfare reforms did great work at getting people out of poverty and acted as groundwork for future reforms. Unfortunately, the next administration allowed welfare to balloon once more, despite allegedly being committed to shrinking the size of government. I think the Food Stamps program would be a good place to start cutting. There's an enormous amount of waste in the program and only 4% of Americans report hunger problems at any itme of the year.

Liberosia wrote:I disagree, Mr. President. It's exactly what I did when I started this operation.

What I mean is that an ideology like anarcho-capitalism would not fit in this game, because regions are structured to have a government and a hierarchy rather than competing services and whatnot. Some principles just don't apply.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Minimum wage does need to be eliminated, businesses know how much to pay their employees to be efficient. Government dictating 15 dollars an hour for flipping burgers should not be up to them

There's too much evidence to advocate not abolishing the minimum wage. It just goes to show how much contempt liberals have for the poor that they ignore the facts over minimum price laws. Denialism is never a good thing, especially when you're supposed to be a champion of the poor no matter what.

Updated the playlists. Thought putting some Nickelback in there would please y'all ;)

Pevvania wrote:Why not do both? Obviously, it'll take a long time to get rid of welfare. I agree that I'd tackle regulation before taxes and the welfare state - one study found that federal regulations have made America 75% poorer (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjseater/regulationandgrowth.pdf). But there is a lot of waste to cut, and according to the CBO eliminating income tax altogether for the bottom 80% of Americans (i.e. households making under $100,000 a year) would only create a revenue shortfall of $96 billion. I think the Clinton welfare reforms did great work at getting people out of poverty and acted as groundwork for future reforms. Unfortunately, the next administration allowed welfare to balloon once more, despite allegedly being committed to shrinking the size of government. I think the Food Stamps program would be a good place to start cutting. There's an enormous amount of waste in the program and only 4% of Americans report hunger problems at any itme of the year.

What I mean is that an ideology like anarcho-capitalism would not fit in this game, because regions are structured to have a government and a hierarchy rather than competing services and whatnot. Some principles just don't apply.

Waste is a fortunate bi-product of government that will not be eliminated entirely until an entire program is eliminated; the State has made feeble efforts to do so in the past and there has been no political motivation to do anything really serious. I would even say it's a good thing in that it converts many people to an attitude of anti-governmentalism. Let's do both, but regulation must come first.

Actually, the game is pretty anarchist in a way. Anarcho-Capitalist especially. But that is not the principle in question.

Pevvania wrote:Updated the playlists. Thought putting some Nickelback in there would please y'all ;)

HELL YEAH!

Albenia wrote:HELL YEAH!

o_0

And regional anarchy is possible.

1. Found a region on puppet

2. Lock it.

3. Leave it.

4. Switch to main.

5. Enter it

Albenia wrote:And regional anarchy is possible.

1. Found a region on puppet

2. Lock it.

3. Leave it.

4. Switch to main.

5. Enter it

And if you get invaded?

Nation States is basically an advanced simulation of feudal anarchy.

Humpheria wrote:And if you get invaded?

Answer?

Humpheria wrote:And if you get invaded?

It's locked.

So we're basically all anarchists...

Albenia wrote:It's locked.

There are ways to find out passwords.

It's not like it's never happened before, there's always something to hack into.

Albenia wrote:It's locked.

How are you going to let others in?

Liberosia wrote:So we're basically all anarchists...

What?

Miencraft wrote:There are ways to find out passwords.

It's not like it's never happened before, there's always something to hack into.

...True.

Humpheria wrote:How are you going to let others in?

Send them password.

Take power from the WAD

Liberosia wrote:So we're basically all anarchists...

No.

Anarchy is "dumb."

Republic Of Minerva wrote:No.

Anarchy is "dumb."

I agree with Minerva here.

If you can't trust people in an Anarchy how can you truat people making laws.

If you can't trust pe making laws how can you trust people when everything is legal and there is no Government?

Albenia wrote:What?...True.Send them password.

Take power from the WAD

But, then you still have to know the password to get in. There is still a type of law. The law of entry. Thus, using your own terms, this region could not be an anarchy.

Everything within the minimal state, nothing outside the minimal state, nothing against the minimal state!

Humpheria wrote:But, then you still have to know the password to get in. There is still a type of law. The law of entry. Thus, using your own terms, this region could not be an anarchy.

.....Point taken

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Everything within the minimal state, nothing outside the minimal state, nothing against the minimal state!

Nothing against it? Sounds abit Authoritarian.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Everything within the minimal state, nothing outside the minimal state, nothing against the minimal state!

But isn't the minimal state supposed to be established during anarcho-capitalism?

Pevvania wrote:But isn't the minimal state supposed to be established during anarcho-capitalism?

What state? Anarchy nk like state.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Everything within the minimal state, nothing outside the minimal state, nothing against the minimal state!

Albenia wrote:I agree with Minerva here.

Albenia wrote:If you can't trust people in an Anarchy how can you truat people making laws.

If you can't trust pe making laws how can you trust people when everything is legal and there is no Government?

Statists gonna state.

It's like feudalist anarchy in that there are no coercive laws inter-regionally (the WA doesn't count), and people have absolute property rights over the regions they create, until they voluntarily give them up.

Liberosia

I like your name...and I'll get you the rewritten version later when I have acess to a computer.

Albenia wrote:Liberosia

I like your name...and I'll get you the rewritten version later when I have acess to a computer.

Thank you.

I appreciate that, but I will probably reject it because I am a close-minded, "traditional", war mongering, establishment supporting, anti-communist, imperialistic, old fashioned Libertatemite (what's the general name?)

Anarcho-capitalism is neo-feudalism.

Liberosia wrote:Thank you.

I appreciate that, but I will probably reject it because I am a close-minded, "traditional", war mongering, establishment supporting, anti-communist, imperialistic, old fashioned Libertatemite (what's the general name?)

Sounds about right

Liberosia wrote:Thank you.

I appreciate that, but I will probably reject it because I am a close-minded, "traditional", war mongering, establishment supporting, anti-communist, imperialistic, old fashioned Libertatemite (what's the general name?)

It won't be any major changes.

Just rewording on correspondence with what you said.

Libertarians are actually authoritarian!

Libertarianism means anarcho-communism! "Libertarians" are actually corporate fascists!

Etc.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Anarcho-capitalism is neo-feudalism.

If you were a leftist I'd seriously be laying the wood into you right now.

This is inaccurate. Anarcho-capitalism is the exact opposite of feudalism, which invests property rights in warlords and barbarians over the land that they conquer. So it's effectively very localised government. Anarcho-capitalism postulates that any unowned land that has been mixed with by an individual is automatically his, and that stolen property should immediately be returned to its rightful owners.

I was working last night (I've been pulling a midnight shift this week) and they had me sweeping the floors. As I labored way at this demeaning task I asked my self why I was doing this when I thought of this:

https://fbcdn-photos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-0/10313960_863698783643469_3877387212835325419_n.jpg

After that I just kept sweeping with a big stupid grin on my face

Lack There Of wrote:I was working last night (I've been pulling a midnight shift this week) and they had me sweeping the floors. As I labored way at this demeaning task I asked my self why I was doing this when I thought of this:

https://fbcdn-photos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-0/10313960_863698783643469_3877387212835325419_n.jpg

After that I just kept sweeping with a big stupid grin on my face

Repetition is the key to success.

Pevvania wrote:If you were a leftist I'd seriously be laying the wood into you right now.

This is inaccurate. Anarcho-capitalism is the exact opposite of feudalism, which invests property rights in warlords and barbarians over the land that they conquer. So it's effectively very localised government. Anarcho-capitalism postulates that any unowned land that has been mixed with by an individual is automatically his, and that stolen property should immediately be returned to its rightful owners.

Lol, I just read the part in the Ethics of Liberty that talks about that, Pev.

Pevvania wrote:Repetition is the key to success.

But, this is not satire! :o

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Anarcho-capitalism is neo-feudalism.

Basically, the most statist of statists are those who advocate not having a State to state the rules of statism.

Liberosia wrote:Lol, I just read the part in the Ethics of Liberty that talks about that, Pev.

Rothception

Great book, but has a few bits that I strongly disagree with. There's a whole wealth of free reading material on Mises.org, everything from The Anatomy of the State to Human Action.

Pevvania wrote:I very strongly support [nation=short]Right-Winged Nation[/nation]. His experience in the region coupled with his principled positions on the role of government make him the most exciting Board candidate in months. He believes in a strong regional defense and less government. I urge you all to vote for him.

I simply do not understand you. No matter what I do, whenever I run for anything or say anything you seem to appose it just to spite me. What do you hold against me? Why do you do this ALL THE TIME? THis coupled with the fact that I literally have the same traits you just described makes it clear to me that you just don't like me. And you'll post something explaining why I'm wrong in like 3 paragraphs of material when all it takes is a few sentences because that is what you do. So go ahead champ.

Albenia wrote:Vote RRRG for an end to the RLP Majority Oligarchy that has plagued this region....

But seriously, Vote RRRG

Thanks brah. For the record, though I philosophically disagree with you and most MPA members(the communist and socialist ones) I don't necessarily hate you guys. I feel like that's how it's come off in the past, just putting that out there.

Pevvania wrote:Updated the playlists. Thought putting some Nickelback in there would please y'all ;)

Nickleback is so bad, just sayin

I will be out for a few hours just as an FYI, so I will respond to the certain slue of paragraphs Pev and others write back.

I also love how Pev is always like, "As a regional official I prefer to stay out of elections as not to swing them." or something like that, but always makes a special exception for elections involving me. Isn't that peculiar?

It is a difficult election when the only thing separating the candidates are the past.

NIckleback is awesome....

They have two good songs...

Burn it down

And Far Away

I am going to pass legeslation involving the radio

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