Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
I wrote a issue one time. It went in.
My nation has now accepted a variation of the gold standard.
Never a bad idea to have something (literally) solid to base the money off of.
Much more stable than print money.
What if your gold industry collapses? What will you do then.
Considering the trading regulations agreed upon by major corporations and agencies for small businesses, any change in the value of gold is relatively impossible. (And even if the value rises by an unpredictable amount like it has been doing for the past several years, there's still a fort full of the stuff that can be distributed to the banks in order to keep inflation at bay.)
He'll invade.
I always liked the saying: "our dollar, your problem." it's not a sustainable approach, but very true.
I'd like to start a discussion. We have all talked about our economic (usually libertarian and conservative) views, but I'd like to here all of your opinion on real life foreign policy. As a citizen of the United States of America, I am familiar with our involvement in world affairs and most troublesome, the Middle East. We have been acting this way since the collapse of the Evil Empire (or the Soviet Socialist Republic); as the world's sole remaining hegemon or superpower. A lot of politicians like to continue this idea of American Supemacy, which I personally believe in, but with an ever growing budget deficit and poor world foreign policy, it seems that American hegemony might not be able to be justified. Not to say that American hegemony is bad; for instance, it is FAR superior to the idea of Chinese or Russian hegemony and the thought of multipolarity (which basically started World War II). What are your ideas? What country do you hail from? How does your place in this world affect your beliefs? As an American, I will always say, "My country, right or wrong."
Well Liberosia I too am a proud citizen of these United States and quite frankly I support these wars because war makes money and jobs especially mass war. The deficit that we believe we gain from these wars is false in my opinion I like to point out that we give billions of dollars to Egypt and other countries that are our enemy and that racks up the debt. On the topic of America policing the world is I believe it is futile to stop because America is more than a country it is an idea, hope, and a shining city on a hill for other countries to model themselves after and that is that freedom and independence is prosperity.
Well, I support your view, and especially the point about the deficit not being caused soley by the warfare. However, I would trade a cut in military spending 9/10 times for a cut in social spending. The deficit under President Bush was partially caused by the increased military spending, although not very much. What disappoints me the most was our inability or lack of motivation to take the oil we deserved from Iraq so we could pay off our military interests. Bush was, however, NOT a true fiscal conservative, raising social spending at every turn and Medicare Part D.
Our current (the US) foreign policy gives a great example of what happens when America does not adequately fulfill its role as the world's sole superpower. Look no further than the current rounds of upheaval in the middle east, the so called "Arab Spring" (I prefer Arab Winter, personally). Prior to US hegemony, British hegemony also helped secure the world as a safer place. Without democratic principles, and a strong nation to serve as a beacon for those principles, an already ugly world would be much uglier.
I take your point with gladness and wish to add my own thoughts to it. In the Cold War, the world had a system of "Bipolarity", or the domination of smaller nationstates by two large nationstates. Obviously, these two were the USSR and the USA. While there have been some instances of the US abusing power in certain areas, it can be said that the good we have done to maintain our form of order has far outdone the bad. For instance, we supported anti-communists everywhere, from Nam to Korea to the Contras. Another point is that Soviet domination was probably the worst domination of other nations and peoples, likely even outdoing Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party. People dominated by the USSR (and there were many, just look at a map of the world before the 90's) lived in a rigid socialist society, often times sent to reeducation camps and without any hope of freedom some time in the future; to live the lives they wanted to live, to buy the things they wanted to buy, to choose the job they wanted to work, and to worship the way they wanted to worship.
Absolutely Liberosia. Well said.
I just wish America, and other nations, would take steps to fighting socialism around the world and show everyone how poor peoples lifestyles are and how oppressive socialism actually is on a scale with communism and facism.
The excellent part is that we did defeat Socialism, once.
And then we never got around to doing it again.
If socialist policies continue to expand in scope in the US, where should one move where there is a strong free market?
Well I've noticed that Britain has been going more conservative for decades and the currency manipulating Chinese are becoming more capitalist than communist or you can take the third way out like I am and go into public service to fix America.
The U.S. should only pull out of the Middle East if they come back with an array of our most destructive guided weapon systems, even to the point of bypassing conventional warfare. I wouldn't complain if the area switched so-called Arab Spring for Nuclear Winter, as long as Israel and Kuwait are left unscathed. Iran, especially, would look a lot better blown off the face of the map. Terrorists and other members of the Earth's scum would realize the full extent of our power and hide in the caves they came from (if there are any remaining).
Peace through strength is fine in most cases, but when dealing with these types, I'd adopt peace through utter annihilation. (After all, it's not war if the other side can't attack back.)
Perhaps it's a bit extreme, but I'll be darned if those Arabian menaces aren't even more so.
Britain is a fail, ISA. Their public sector consumes nearly half their economy.
Give them time it takes years to fix the destruction of socialism.
Foreign policy is for p*ssies that either have to rely on others for support and are not independent. No foreign relations, I say.
A nation can either be a net exporter, or a net importer. In either case, foreign relations are essential (trade agreements, etc). On the other hand, North Korea and Cuba are generally self-sufficient nations that rely very little on foreign trade but they are essentially stuck in the equivalent of 1950s. Isolationism and a complete lack of foreign policy has never been effective.
1950s Soviet Union that is
Steinwig what country are you a citizen of?
It's Steinweg. And I'm a citizen of Kalaallit Nunaat.
Greenland? Hmm.
Well I'm not to sure about Greenland's foreign policy but I can assure you that in the modern day that if you stand alone you will become economically weak and that leads to other weaknesses eventually so I advise you to watch what you say and hault your insults.
Well, I assume Steinweg dislikes the idea of a foreign policy because his beliefs align most closely to national socialism (which isn't really socialist in full). This form of economy is one purely of the nation, which is why NS parties are typically militaristic, trying to consume more territory to acquire the resources needed to maintain an economy. The economy is not neccessarily any portion public or private, just the "right amount" as the situation calls. Obviously, I do not believe in this (as I believe in free trade), but it is not the worst form of economy.
If interested, please apply for Manager of the State.
*Note: include all relevent details in your application and send them to me.
Actually, I was joking around. No one likes Greenland. My ideals are a mixture of authoritarian democracy, national socialism, and libertarianism. I do believe having allies is key to success. What I said about foreign policy above was merely a jest. I truly believe that having allies and clearly defined enemies (not necessarily a stark contrast to the beliefs of your own nation, rather, a clear definition of what an enemy of your nation is) is key to having a successful nation.
I believe your hiding behind the joke thing because I called you out. I want to remind you how disrespectful your comment was and if you'll accept that then we can put this little incident behind us.
Dude, say what you will about the tenets of nationalist socialism, at least it's an ethos. But Nihilism--also and Dude, you can't have a--you know--the marmot--within city...
Please tell me someone's seen the Big Lebowski
I'm not hiding behind a joke, I'm fine with anyone "calling me out" based on what I believe, or what someone thinks I believe. I'm a citizen of the United States of America. Who is a citizen of Greenland, anyway? I'm sorry if what I'm saying is provoking you, in no way is what I'm saying trying to be interpreted in that fashion. It's only text.
I think you are unreasonably offended, ISA. He didn't say anything explicitly disrespectful.
After due consideration, I have decided to relieve Chairman [nation=short]Utopian States[/nation] from his Board position and therefore his role as Chairman of the Board. With this said, I summarize:
1) The Board must now vote on a new Chairman
2) After the new Chairman is selected, a new Board Member spot will be opened up
3) And the postion of "Manager of the State" is currently open
What do the board members do?
....foreign policy. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Any specifics?
I was being facetious.
Steinweg, a description of the duties of the Board can be found in our constitution and the various links above it.
Buy shares and food from Rotgeheim Foodservices, GmbH! Healthy and cheap!
http://nationstates.net/nation=rotgeheim/detail=factbook/id=83953
TG either Rotgeheim or I if you wish to become a buyer.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." -John F. Kennedy
I give my loyalty to Liberosia.
We as a region should discuss this new development. We now have partial control, under my negotiations, of a small/medium sized region. What shall be the new name of our dominion?
Perhaps a few of those in the New Libertatem Colony would be interested in joining the Lonestar Party.
How about Atrasabad? I just came up with a random one you decide something.
Hmm... this generates names: http://www.namegenerator.biz/place-name-generator.php
I bring my utmost condolences to all residents of the United States if America on here, for they now live in a fascist nation.
hi
I don't believe that we live in a fascist nation. What proof do you have?
Hear hear, Snabagag. I need to start a campaign to remove and replace the federal government in an organized fashion, or at least do something to improve states rights.
Welcome, Arcadiuss.
I have believed that we have been on a socialist path for 5 years now, it's unbearable.
I agree.
I am an extreme conservative but you cannot remove the federal government, we need order and authority and atleast with this one we can persuade our leaders and trust them to carry out what we want thats why we vote for them! Some people are just sellouts to the liberal message that is why we are on this track but we can fix it with our power to vote!
Secession is the key. A hat tip to [nation=short]RedBadge[/nation].
Obama is trying to make a law saying that guns clips cannot carry more than 10 rounds. A criminal won't care at all! Obama is a STUPID MINDLESS GOOD FOR NOTHING LIBERAL!!!!!!!! Did i mention he is STUPID?
In my opinion Secession is the cowards way out for people who wont stand against the opressive forces and fight for their rights but rather flee from their duties to uphold our rights, it's in the Constitution that it is our duty to uphold eachother's rights as U.S. Citizens and I will not sign a petition to secede or stand behind someone who wants to.
Secession is an excellent second choice, but I would prefer to detach the current federal government from its position and erect a new one in its place - one that defends people's rights without infringing upon them, and leaving the states to run themselves. It's a lot more efficient, and the U.S. would have 50 different somewhat-sovereign locales to live in, each with its own political shift.
Well thats how it would be, CI, if we only elected people that upheld the Constitution. You don't have to be a republican, libertarian, or democrat to run for the people, for the Constitution, and for America.
I think that's quite an idealistic view. The establishment and system itself is what is corrupting all of our politicians - we haven't had a good, incorruptible guy in there for quite a while now.
Well if the majority of Americans would quit selling out to the progressive message ( not all democrats are bad as I've began to realise ) of getting something for nothing, and if they would regain their morals and vote in people who reflected their morals and someone who upheld rights and fought the progressives then it wouldn't be so corrupt in my opinion.
True enough. Democrats do have a few trustworthy characteristics, but the ones that cling to socialism aren't my friends.
I like what are "blue dog" or "southern" democrats who are fiscal conservatives and lean socially liberal, basically a left leaning libertarian.
Yeah, I've discovered recently that there are quite a few of those.
Though it's not only a progressive Washington we have but another overlooked issue is education. Many history, civic, and business teachers are progressive liberals in higher grade schools and in universities they are a big problem with indoctrinating the next generation. In a poll reported by Rick Santorum 62% of young adults who enter universities with religious morals leave the school without them.
Now if only enough of America was smart enough to get off of their asses long enough to revolt.
We don't need to revolt we just need to spread the message. I go onto yahoo, facebook, and when I play World of Warcraft I spread the conservative message. I also donate to conservative candidates and c-pac and I almost forgot to mention the Tea Party. I don't always get a good reaction when I spread the message, sometimes no reaction at all but I do my part.
People ARE too lazy to make a change, though. It really sucks.
Oh no we're getting a change CI a change "forward" forward to failure and destruction.
Good point. Marco Rubio needs to run in the 2016 Elections.
I like Rubio but I'm pulling for Rand Paul or Governor Bob McDonell.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -The Declaration of Independence
It clearly states above, that citizens have the right to form new governments when the current one becomes abusive or destructive. Obviously, the current government has become abusive, so it is our right to form our own government. It is for the people who want freedom to form this new government, so secession of states wishing to leave the Union is the perfect option, since it allows liberals to continue their self slavery to the state and lets conservatives live in a new land of freedom.
You can support that if you want but I dont want this nation turned into a bunch of countries. I stand with my idea of fighting the oppression and spreading true constitutional freedom throughout America rather than running.
That passage of the Declaration of Independence means more than just that, Liberosia. It offers not only offers the right to secede, but also the right of the people to REPLACE the current government. If the federal government were re-imagined as a small institution that delegates most of its duties to the individual states (and protects the rights of people so that no state can make truly oppressive laws), there would be 50 individual territories, some of which the liberals could control, and some of which the conservatives would control. Libertarian ideals would influence some, while authoritarian ideas would influence others. People would then have the choice and the freedom to move to whichever state holds the political shift closest to their ideology.
The best part is here - it would all still be one country!
You basically propose the Articles of Confederation CI which failed before.
Yes, but CI, I'd rather not live with a group of people who would simply corrupt the government all over again. It is this that impels me to endose separation rather than replacement. Of course I'd rather see the Union stay one and inseparable, ISA, but not if it becomes what the founders fought against.
A state legislator in Texas is looking to make it a felony punishable with a $50,000 fine and up to 5 years in jail for any individual trying to enforce Obama's unconstitutional executive orders. God I love Texas! Only been there once, but they get it down there. One of the times I went to Germany, I talked with some folks who didn't like it that only the police had guns. Something about their experience in the 1940s.
Then spread constitutional conservatism Liberosia so we can maintain and fix the union.
I already do that. That's the problem, it's not enough, sadly.
I guess this would be good to share since there are lots of libertarians on here. This is a libertarian purity test:
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi
I scored a 59 which makes me a "medium-core libertarian".
BTW I found this test on the NS general board.
I got a medium core score of 84. In the end, as a Christian, I respect the state and its small role in life. I am not an anarchist.
I scored a 79 but even though I'm a libertarian in this region I'm actually a far right conservative, and I'm often called a radical by many that I know.
Well, there are some clear goals and needs in a republican form of government. I believe government is needed to enforce property rights and contracts, otherwise, people could cheat each other.
I'm not an anarchist I just believe in a limited government and responsible regulations.
Scored 85 on that Libertarian test.
I scored 157 points...oops.
But that's no wonder since I am an anarcho-capitalist and I do believe that the state is inherently evil.
See, I believe the state is essential to liberty.
I used to, but I can not support the state as it is unethical and immoral by it's extortion of citizens and much much more.
Snabagag makes a good point but I believe in a limited state to maintain order and provide whats reasonable in the binds of the Constitution.
I recommend reading this, ISA and Liberosia: http://strike-the-root.com/what-time-to-be-alive
Snabagag, while I respect Miss Rand and the other economists mentioned in your article, I maintain that government is the preferable option as a neutral party to enforce individual and property rights, as well as make war with others (i.e. national defense). Most economists agree that some government is needed (such as good old Milton Friedman who said, "Those who have a lack of belief in the free market have a lack of belief in freedom itself). I support complete deregulation: the only law should be individual rights, like the Bill of Rights. However, that small amount of coercion is needed to pay for the defense of the nation and the court system. My beliefs stem from the Bible and the Declaration of Independence. Regarding the Bible, Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's. Conversely, Paul and some other apostles said, quite plainly, to pay your taxes. Snabagag, I recognize your atheism, so I do not mean for this to apply to you, rather, I hope the next part will. "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." -The Declaration of Independence. Even Thomas Jefferson recognized the need for some government to, as it clearly states, secure the rights of the people. However, the republican government requires the consent of the governed, so when this small government becomes abusive, then it may be replaced with a new one.
And that is my case for government.
I just cut the taxes in my nation...again.
I think instead of secceeding, we should simply revolt. And if that doesn't work, then an all-out rebellion.
And how are you gonna do that?
Hello guys, I'm back.
Snabagag, read the Leviathan by Hobbes. Government's only role should be to protect property rights (including personal safety).
Eh, Hobbes borders on fascist.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.