Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
*single tear rolls down cheek*
But there is no government in anarcho communism?
I don't get you.
The goal of communism is to create a classless moneyless stateless society, anarcho communists go strait to the point where as statist communists use the state and plan on getting rid of it later.
Post self-deleted by Factcheck.
Post self-deleted by Factcheck.
Regarding your first statement I think these people would disagree.
https://www.nationstates.net/region=libcom
What? I never said anything about anarcho-communism. Anarcho-communism is fictitious as a unicorn, Communism cannot be implemented without a state....
That's okay, not everyone can be on my substantially high level. =P
Have you heard of Stalin?
Is this, perhaps, a fairy tale? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
Factcheck
Interesting topic Autarchist.
Makhno conscripted troops to defend the land, hardly an anarchist thing to do.
Don't get me wrong, communist ideals or not I'll fully back a completely anarchist... territory if you will... because it will inevitably lead to capitalism.
Pevvania
Thinking of interesting topics, I'm glad your here Autarchist. I've read a bit about Autarchist but never had actually met an Autarchist. Fascinating ideology, I'm looking forward to learning more from you.
Autocorrect... ugh.
Seeing as there was not only the White Army but also later the Red Army, I'm not surprised it had to come to that. To add, no one was coerced to stay there or anything, so if you wanted to stay you had to fight.
Muh Roads, Factcheck
You're right in part, excluding those that won't let their citizens leave that easily.
Muh Roads
I was thinking, somebody should make a History of Libertatem, it would be cool.
Pevvania, The New United States, Muh Roads
Alright, I think I'm finally back. Do I need to reapply for citizenship?
I've thought about this too. There was a Libertatem wiki once... but it was ran by a spy.
Upon recently joining Libertatem, the Government of Industrial City has decided to adopt an open borders policy to facilitate every individual's right to participate in free trade. Businesses are invited to seek commerce with our booming and efficient industries. Tourist are welcome to enjoy our many wonders such as our world renown architecture, as well our Howard Roark Museum of Arts and Architecture sponsored by Atlas Industries. All are welcome to ask questions here or in our national mail box. Come see our family friendly environment, and the gosh darn swell freedom we have achieved in the city-state of Industrial City.
-Howard Atlas, Chairman of The Industrial City Board of Directors
As a former citizen, you should be good, but contact Mien just to be sure.
Yeah, but you can probably just go get the Board to waive your wait and I'll just grant you the thing immediately after that.
Oh look I found it:
http://libertatem.wikia.com/wiki/Libertatem_Wiki
Czechm8 http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwyiw3LARG1qhno7oo1_400.jpg
I mean libertarian and completely free with little government control in association with the anarcho part.
Ahh gotcha.
New Shizturdea
We need some more citizenship applications. There aren't enough citizens in our region, imo.
New Shizturdea
Anyone have any objection to lowering the day requirement?
Industrial City
Nope.
The FRAUD Act and its amendments means that we can nullify/revoke the citizenship of any spies, and reject the apps of shady characters. So that's good.
Fun fact: [nation=short]Conservative Idealism[/nation] became the region's first Manager of Recruitment and Internal Affairs 2 years and 229 days ago.
Condealism Envoy Unit One
Brauistan
2 years 227 days ago
Following consultation with Liberosia, the Libertatem Directorate for Strategic Military Intelligence is now the officially sanctioned foreign intelligence agency of the region. . The agency is tasked with covert infiltration of Communist regions, particularly those secured against traditional raiding tactics. Information will be shared with members via telegram. All those wishing to be involved please contact Brauistan. Additional details may be posted, with sensitive information redacted.
The Autoritářský Demokracie of [nation=short]Einsiev[/nation]
2 years 219 days ago
Im not Nazi just Fascist.
That makes it so much better. ^_^
Hallo Island, Autarchist Anti-State
If Liberals are against xenophobia, why are they anti-free trade? Tariffs discriminate against foreign countries and protectionism means that you'd literally be afraid of foreign competition i.e. foreigners
#liberallogic
Pevvania
Ahhhhh you are so Ayn Rand that it hurts
No, but it should stay.
Perhaps cut it in half?
But if you cut it in half, won't that kill it?
Waiting-time should be eliminated, not just lowered. It's not like a five-day waiting period will weed out any spies that are actually competent enough to do anything. All it is is a pointless hurdle.
Therefore, let's just get rid of it.
Just allow the IA Manager the discretion to take however long is necessary on each app.
The 10 day waiting period is the only thing that has stopped me from applying for citizenship.
Like getting rid of it is going to keep me from denying apps from people who move in and then immediately send in an application without even bothering to do anything.
In my opinion, we should bump the requirement up a lot and mandate some form of regular participation. That's not going to happen, and as long as it works, I'm fine with a lower wait, but only down to five days.
I do still think we should have some official participation requirement, but so far I've just been denying apps from people who come in, wait ten days, then do absolutely nothing, so it's not like we really need one.
We are at a good pace.
A better idea would be to reward active people with citizenship, not bar it.
Industrial City
Why thank you lol.
Waive the waiting period entirely and administer a short citizenship test instead. If people can't correctly answer just three questions related to our region's laws, they cannot apply again for another five days (making that the new waiting period). Or something like that.
Post self-deleted by Narland.
What is your name? What is your quest? What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? :)
Muh Roads, Factcheck
African or European?
Muh Roads
That's actually not a bad idea. Maybe change the questions once every few weeks so no one comes up with a cheat sheet.
Or there could be a master list of questions known only to the Internal Affairs department, and three questions are chosen at random every time the Manager gives the test.
Oooh, yes, that's good.
I'll do that.
Some excellent ideas thrown around concerning citizenship requirements. Regardless of what options we take, I think we should prioritise the following:
-Maintaining the flexibility of the Department of Internal Affairs
-Making citizenship simple and fair to acquire
-Rewarding active regional participants with citizenship while keeping out spies and other rabble
Right now, dozens of the new arrivals also have little incentive to participate since many of us just ignore them and talk to the regional oldies. We should engage everyone in the discussion. I recommend an unofficial 'Greet the Newbie' policy, where we say hello or say something friendly to a new resident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aORCqQSGbKo
Milton Friedman: "I don't assume that private schools are better than public schools. I assume... that competition is better than monopoly."
The Aradites, Industrial City
When I apply for citizenship am I allowed to start my own political party?
You can start a party at any time for any reason, but you can only run for office if you're a citizen.
Industrial City
Humpheria is supposed to be our regional greeter right now, but he went to camp.
thanks obama
Muh Roads
How do you guys vote? Libertarian, Republican, Democratic, Green - what?
I try to ignore parties when I vote, personally.
Greetings fellow nations of Libertatem. In the city-state of Industrial City we have developed a unique system of government called corporate democracy. Since I founded Industrial City back in 1964, we do not have conventional political parties, but rather we believe government should be run with the efficiency and sense of endeavor of a business. In implementing the model of corporate democracy, we formed a system in which the citizens vote not for individual career politicians or a political party, rather we vote for which private corporation we trust to run the business of the city-state and guard individual liberty. I am proud to say as the CEO of the incumbent corporation that Atlas Industries has been consistently reelected every term since Industrial City's founding in '64 .
To participate in the politics of our great region however Atlas Industries has deemed it necessary to form a new political party. Atlas Industries is proud to announce to Libertatem the formation of The Industrial Objectivist Party (IOP). The political platform of the Industrial Objectivist Party is as follows:
-Advancing a practical application of the teachings of Objectivism as the enlightened Mother of our city-state who still guides us, Ayn Rand.
-Cooperation with the region and the international community towards the goals of protecting individual freedom, free trade and reason.
-Building channels of commerce so Libertatem can expand into foreign and undeveloped foreign markets.
-The implementation of more aggressive policies to fight the threat to free markets and individual freedom that cultural Marxism, altruism and superstition pose.
The IOP is officially open to any questions or comments from the nations of Libertatem in the regional message board, or in our national message box.
-Howard Atlas, Chairman of The Industrial City Board of Directors (IOP)
Libertarian or independent, as long as the two main parties have a legal monopoly on the political system it would be immoral to give them any ground.
I was really into Ayn Rand for a while until I realized SHE'S F*CKING INSANE.
You are of course entitled to express your views on this forum, but name calling is not a productive way to exercise free speech, or to advance your point in a conversation.
What
I'm not saying that he isn't allow to call people names. I'm only stating that calling someone a name such as "F*CKING INSANE" isn't a real argument against a given claim. Doing so is what is referred as an ad hominem. As a defender of individual freedom I am more than happy to discuss differences in opinion and policy. I even defend the right to call people names, but I have the right to point out that name calling isn't a valid form of argumentation.
Free speech isn't a matter of productivity.
I've said before, in many different venues, that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences - but what I've neglected to mention, what the truth is, is that there is no speech without consequences. It is our personal responsibility to hold ourselves accountable for what we say, and to respond to the results of our actions no matter what those results might be. No government, business, community, or institution has the power to say what kind of speech is "wrong" and what kind is "right" - that is something we have to decide for ourselves, and we must be prepared for the fallout when others disagree.
Many communities impose a ban on hate speech. People of various ideologies refuse to hear the words of their opponents. Hell, there are even groups that impose censorship on their members in a manner most draconian. But far be it from them, or from any of us, to determine what kind of speech is inherently "productive".
That is to say, many groups do note the difference between right speech and wrong speech - some quite loudly, at that - but aside from how others perceive your words (and the intentions behind them), there isn't really a difference.
Some would argue that you should conform to whatever community you're speaking to so that your words never affront them. Others would argue that you should push the envelope where possible if you think your ideals are being compromised. Still others think you should say whatever you want. Thing is, there are many philosophies dedicated to speech, and not one is infallible.
Right, but "productive" makes absolutely no sense because productivity can never apply to speech.
Also, it's totally valid, it's just fallacious. Fallacies don't necessarily invalidate the argument, just that one little part of it.
If you look back at what I wrote I never said that his use of speech should be banned or censored. I was only making the point that anytime two or more parties have a disagreement over a problem the said parties will not arrive at a solution to the problem by calling each other names, hence the behavior not being productive.
If someone decides to exercise free speech in a way that's not productive they are free do do that, but the freedom of speech also guarantees me the right to describe how others are using their speech. Remember the freedom of speech works both ways.
A lot of what politics is about is communicating with others to arrive at an understanding a given topic of concern so the parties involved can work towards a given end, hence someone's use of speech in this context may described as productive in so far as it facilitates this process. I understand what you're saying about fallacies not necessarily invalidating arguments, but my point was that Midland County never actually made an argument, and only called Rand a name.
The New United States
I understand that - and I was making the point that productivity is completely irrelevant to the right to free speech. See, talk is cheap; we speak all the time, but seldom for the purpose of action, making "talking productively" just about as meaningless as "breathing productively" and "sleeping productively". In other words, productivity - the state or quality of producing something - is determined by our labors, not our platitudes nor our insults.
I would also like to point out that you are the only one (so far) who has alleged that Mid's insult in particular was in any way discordant or even argumentative... or, if you prefer, "productive".
And that's the thing - he wasn't making an argument. He was preaching to the choir; most of us are already convinced that Rand was nutty. I mean, she made the protagonist of one of her books deliver a speech that went on for dozens of pages, for crying out loud. No one else here is disputing that he was right to call her "F*CKING INSANE."
And if you are, now it's an argument.
In short, there is no "productive way to exercise free speech", because each person does so in their own unique way, often without considering notions such as "productivity" as they talk.
If you look at my original reply to Midland County, you will see I said the following:
I clearly made no challenge to Midland County's freedom of speech like you are fallaciously accusing me of. As a matter a fact I said that he DID have the right to state his opinion. So far it looks more like you are trying to silence me from describing behavior as productive or non-productive. In regard to another point you made, the expression "talk is cheap" only applies to people who's actions contradict what they say, and not to all speech in any given context. The use of speech is an important and necessary part of the functioning of any society's legal system, politics, economy and commerce. It is through speech and communication that we pass laws, engage in diplomacy, create business contracts between industrious entrepreneurs and other productive endeavors.
You also must consider the context of this conversation. This is a message board for the nations of Libertatem to speak to one another about our worlds politics, so we can act towards ends we negotiate with each other. If you want to speak frivolously and without regard for the productivity of your behavior in a discussion in here you are free to do that, but I would advise your political constituents to reconsider how much value they want to put into considering what you say given your admitted mode of conduct in a conversation.
In Midland County's post to the IOP platform posting a clear expression of disagreement was expressed, and thus an attempt at argumentation. If someone wants to make an ad hominem argument to preach to the choir they are free to, just as I am free to point out they they are in fact making an ad hominem claim.
Good evening (morning?) Libertatem,
For those of you who do not know me, nice to meet you. For those who do, greetings.
If you are not already aware, I am midway through my campaign to become the next Chancellor of the Federation Of Free States. I look forward to working closely with Libertatem and would love your support in doing so.
Yours,
I'm sorry sir but we are going to have to censor you now.
*puts on plastic gloves*
Please take off your shirt and count to ten.
I should probably have assumed this earlier, but I now have the distinct impression that you are deliberately misinterpreting what I have to say. (Or accidentally misinterpreting it.)
I did not accuse you of challenging Mid's freedom of speech - if you had done so, that would have been utterly absurd, after all - nor did I attempt to "silence" you for demonstrating a sophomorically moralistic view of behavior - if I were trying to, I wouldn't have criticized you, and you wouldn't have had a reason to reply (ergo you would be silent).
I am instead challenging your concept of speech - specifically, the idea that it is some sort of privilege to be used for "productivity" rather than a right to be expressed however one sees fit (provided, of course, they are willing to deal with the consequences). Your summary of communication as an action is detailed, and your stance on it is admirable, but you seem not to regard the freedom that comes with it - these endeavors you speak of, after all, exist independently of this liberty, considering it's mostly because of that very liberty that no one is obligated to use communication in a constructive manner.
The context of this situation is a very good example of this - your first two posts here were grandiose in-character announcements (a fact which speaks volumes of how you intend to communicate in and of itself), and Mid's most recent comment was merely an offhand remark (an out-of-character remark, if you will) regarding what he thinks of Ayn Rand. And a remark is all it was - one intended for our mostly laid-back and generally like-minded audience. You, however, took it to mean he was trying to argue a point (perhaps because you were offended, or assumed he was trying to offend you - which is justifiable, under the circumstances), and decided to "correct him" on his use of ad hominem as though he were participating in some sort of debate. (You were within your right to do so, just as Mien was within his right to leave a puzzled reply and I was within my right to make a bombastic speech about it.)
Take it from someone who likes to type long-winded posts (though not as long-winded as Ayn Rand's work): Speech is valuable for many more reasons than what it accomplishes - part of the reason why is because it's a choice. We can choose what we want to say. We can choose how we want to respond to what others have said. And we can choose not to speak at all.
We're not obligated to communicate... but we often do so anyway. We're free to, after all, and we can do it in whatever manner we will, productive or not.
Miencraft
It seems like you are now trying to back track on what you have been arguing about this entire time. If it was the case that you were only disagreeing with my concept of speech there would have been no purpose in bring up the freedom of speech issue in your argument. In the very letter I am replying to right now you admit that I didn't challenge Mid's freedom of speech when you yourself say "I did not accuse you of challenging Mid's freedom of speech", and yet letter in the very same letter you contradict yourself when you say "you seem not to regard the freedom that comes with it". Your position on what I said doesn't seem to be internally coherent.
You later make the point that "We're not obligated to communicate... but we often do so anyway. We're free to, after all, and we can do it in whatever manner we will, productive or not". I never said anything to challenge that claim. My point during my reply to Mid wasn't that he didn't have a right to say what he said, just what he said made no real contribution to a conversation about policy (out of character or not). I have the right to point that out. Given that this forum is a place for the nations of Libertatem to discuss policy, it is reasonable to interpret Mid's comment as part of a discussion of policy. I was not offended by his comment, I just informed him that not a useful way to approach such a discussion.
Were my earlier post "grandiose in-character" as you put it? I am new to this region so I had the goals of introducing Industrial City to the rest of the region, sharing some information about city-state, as well as announcing my intentions toward joining Libertatem as every member has the right to do. I also made a post regarding the formation of The Industrial Objectivist Party, which is how this whole conversation started. Generally when you are starting a political party its a good idea let let other people know "A" that it exist, and "B" what the party's platform is, which is also something every member of the region has the right to do. If such actions are considered "grandiose in-character" so be it. The rest of what you said I have already addressed earlier in this conversation.
I have no idea what this discussion is about (something about free speech?), but I just came here to say that Anthem was a brilliant book.
Lewayiin, Hallo Island, The Aradites, Industrial City
Some texts between myself and my friend:
Friend: Well well well....... Would you look at that! An other american shooting
Me: So? There are more mass shootings by governments that ban self-defense than there ever were in America. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all banned guns and self-defense before murdering millions of their own people. I don't see any mass shootings in New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy or the dozens of other countries with relaxed gun laws. Error 404: correlation not found
Friend: For some reason I don't think David Cameron will kill 6 million Jews
Me: My point is that gun control is a tool of disarmament used by authoritarian governments. It is an indisputable fact that governments have engineered far more genocides, mass shootings and killings than all individual spree killers combined.
Me: And if the case for gun control was any weaker, higher gun ownership, which is found in western, developed countries, is strongly correlated with fewer homicides, fewer rapes and fewer violent crimes. So to point to a single example - America - as proof that guns cause killings is both a fallacy and logically unsound. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens keep people safe from criminals and governments alike.
Me: Also, David Cameron could not possibly kill 6 million Jews, since there are only around 263,346 Jews living in Britain, according to the 2011 census.
Miencraft, Lewayiin, Industrial City
Whilst I totally agree with what you're saying, did you tip your fedora after that last statement?
Pevvania
I really enjoyed Anthem at first, actually. But then I learned that Anthem and We by Yevegny Zamyatin (published 14 years before Anthem), is basically the exact same book and now it's all a little iffy for me.
Addressing the horrible crapstorm above^^^, I wasn't really looking for a debate (at all), and I was just throwing out my (perfectly valid) opinion.
But now that it's out there...
Objectivism is god-awful as a philosophy. It's a philosophy of an immature mind where you can shove things into imaginary boxes and draw extreme lines between black and white to an extent that I had previously thought was the exclusive domain of young children. My own immature mind founded the Libertarian Objectivist party back in the day, and I'm seriously embarrassed that that whole thing went down. Her fiction writing can barely be called that; If the story is less important to you than lecturing your philosophy, you are not writing fiction, you are writing propaganda. The only reason she wrote "fiction" was because she knew she couldn't trick anybody into reading her blatantly illogical manifestos. Ayn Rand refused to believe that any philosophy except her own had any merit and that is no reasonable way to be.
You speak of my "Ad Hominem" as though:
A. I was making a formal argument
B. You are directly offended by me insulting Ayn Rand, a woman who died 35 years ago
Are you related to Rand? Is she your grandma? Are you her ghost?
Industrial City
Brilliant, but completely stolen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)
Industrial City
According to Wikipedia, there's no evidence that she'd ever read We the Living.
What exactly do you dislike about her philosophy?
I think Objectivism hits a lot of the right notes, but my Christianity and anarchism - two things Rand despised - are incompatible with it.
Lewayiin
How could you tell? ;)
It really doesn't align with my own personal philosophy of "try not to be an asshole". It works okay(ish) on paper, but in practice I'm pretty sure everyone would just think you're a d*ck. Which is why objectivists are bitter and condescending. Because their philosophy is basically "be uncooperative and abrasive unless it benefits you in some weird manipulative kind of way", and people don't really love that.
Only if you use it the wrong way you turn out like that. I tend to apply it in a more subtle way. And the "slogan" of...
"be uncooperative and abrasive unless it benefits you in some weird manipulative kind of way"
...is basic human nature, just saying. It's more about embrassing yourself and everything good about you and why you should be considered better. It's for people who want to pave their own way and be successful. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be better than other people, because at the end of the day no matter what, all you really have is yourself, and you should want to make yourself the best you can. That's my take on it.
Just because selfishness is human nature doesn't mean it isn't a flaw.
There is a significant difference between selfishness and self-interest, one which Ayn Rand seemingly failed to grasp. Self-interest is the completely human desire to care for one's self and those around them, and doing things as a result of it. Selfishness is employing self-interest at the expense of other people. An example of selfishness is eating most of the pizza slices intended for a group of friends, something which I totally don't do.
Lewayiin
Luckily enough for us, the God of Christianity and His scriptures demand both good behavior and limited government.
Pevvania
I'm convinced that Jesus Christ was an anarchist.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l87jCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=jesus+is+an+anarchist+anti+state&source=bl&ots=AZHLgjhpRv&sig=rh8alg8IemG8HpicYMHRAydoLhU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eliEVd2pHYbT7Qb1moD4BQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=jesus%20is%20an%20anarchist%20anti%20state&f=false
I consider myself a Christian anarchist - the only god is God, imo.
The New United States
Ah, but selfishness is different from self pride and conservation of self, which is what it promotes. It's a far more introspective way of thinking, it's all about yourself. That doesn't make you selfish to me, but rather just more concerned with your own prosperity, because if you do not prosper and live, then you die, and nothing will matter anyways. All you have is yourself, everything else is a mirage; it all ends eventually.
I actually am not offended, and don't actually share the views of "Objectivism" in real life. For me Rand's work is fascinating as an ideology, but it not a philosophy in the proper sense. I created Industrial City as a sort of thought experiment expressed as fiction of what it would of been like if Rand's ideas were used to build an intended utopia. As I develop the story of Industrial City on here I plan to examine the harsh realities of class, race, sex, healthcare as well as others in a way that that actual deconstructs Objectivism & Capitalism more broadly.
My reply to you was in character as Howard Atlas, who intended to engage you in a discussion on the political forum. I would like to say to you personally that I apologize if it came off like a personal attack or an insult of some sort. My intentions toward you were nothing but friendly, and I'm sorry if that didn't come across.
The Nazi Party platform: UKIP meets Green Party meets steroids
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/25Points.html
So many CTEs today.
All hail puppets.
A pretty compelling read, at least the short bit that I was able to get through at lunch.
Christ's teachings and actions are certainly at odds with those ideologies that treat the state as equal to or greater than our Creator, those ideologies which propound the thought that our rights are created not by that which is incorruptible but by that which is corruptible, not by Divine Providence but by the men that occupy seats of earthly power. Unfortunately, many of our Christian brothers and sisters adhere to such beliefs, and we must remember that we, as Christians, have no god but God (24 ¶No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Matthew 6).
Jesus Christ is certainly an anti-statist. An Anarchist? I don't think He wants humanity to live in Anarchy, but my argument against Anarchy (at least in the context of religion) is based primarily upon revelation given in the Doctrine & Covenants, the words of Christ as given through the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the teachings of the Latter-Day prophets that followed.
Jesus Christ was not "the first Socialist," as some leftists love to inaccurately claim. Socialism is coercion and coercion is of Satan.
Pevvania, The Aradites
This is good, while a shiny high population looks nice, it doesn't amount to much if the citizens are not active. Recruiting will begin again shortly, but we need to weed out a few folks.
The institute of non-satire's "share a coke with" post had me laughing so hard I teared up. I'd share the pic but don't wanna get banned.
Pevvania, The New United States
Quick question, is libertatem a left or right wing. It seems right, but aren't liberals (Not the Australian ones) left wing. Or is it based on Libertarianism, where you can do what you like if it doesn't harm anyone and supports smaller governments.
Most of us here are AnCap or some form of Libertarian, but all opinions are more than welcome in this region!
"18 hours ago: Bootiboi ceased to exist."
oh
Pevvania, Hallo Island
Now, if only we were tolerant and enlightened enough to supress dissenting views, banject anyone who isn't ideologically pure, avoid any and all contact with people that hold opposing ideas and enforce strict NS-category rules, like most of the NS-left.
If we were like that, it would truly illustrate how sound our beliefs are!
Lewayiin
That sounds a little fascist...
Hehehehehheh
After reading 288 RMB posts, I'm back.
Pevvania
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.