Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Well, yeah. Awesome. Then it isn't forced and people use how they wish. But state currency is forced on people.
True. To begin we could legalize competition and private banks could offer fiat currencies functioning like the bank's stock.
And people can choose which currency serves them best. For me, simple barter, BitCoin or precious metal is good. So I won't be using banks much.
All of those things are great, but I would rather have actual goods and services. I have some silver, but frankly you can't eat it.
*cocks gun* Am I the only one around here who thinks multiple currencies would be too confusing?
I'm on Chatzy. http://us11.chatzy.com/84081373772932
Liberosia, can you set that on the WFE as the region's official discussion room?
"*cocks gun* Am I the only one around here who thinks multiple currencies would be too confusing?"
*Aims gun* Should we have currency?
Or the simple my two goats for your cow rule? Trade accepted. And botttlecaps ;)
I prefer the gold standard, myself.
True when the price dropped I almost shat my pants and bought some. Then it took off again.
For gold, that is.
God bless the USA!
I second that :P
I'm on Chatzy.
It's the 4th. I recommend everyone read the Declaration today.
I've never actually read it. So I'll promote that to number two on my 'stuff to read on the internet' list, after the Communist Manifesto.
Nope, gotta read it now. It's really short.
Ok. Also, ya gotta update the WFE Liberosia :P
I took your advice, Liber. It's a pretty excellent document, apart from the bit where it refers to Indians as savages.
Yay the Communist Manifesto. I like getting mad and punching the monitor
Congrats to Aggnar for having the very last spot on the largest welfare systems list.
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan.
Good one, Pevvania. Reagan was good at this.
If you mean good at making quotes, then he was awesome at that. Care to join me on Chatzy? :P
Ha, Reagan had a lot of funny quips and quotes.
Con! Go on chat :P
Why don't you just TG instead of wanting to chat so much? :P
It's much quicker and easier, and it's a different atmosphere from TGing. And also, I'm so bored I could eat my leg.
It doesn't have to be a different atmosphere, and it seems TGing is the quickest way to get a reply, most often. And if you're that bored, go do something. :3
It's hard to explain, CLoF.
"And if you're that bored, go do something."
That's so much easier said than done ;'(
I didn't say you had to go become a knight or anything. :P Even very small things (like reading the Bible) can be very good, so don't worry about it so much. :)
I'm going to press forward with the REAGAN Treaty. How should I go about it? Should we send an ambassador to meet in a neutral region with other delegates and work out more of the kinks? Or what?
I am now announcing my closure of embassies with Libertatem.
Congratulations, I give precisely zero *insert term of vulgarity here*s. Here is your medal.
I've found that, despite challenging liberal opinion on global warming, we don't often have much to say about environmentalism.
This is a mistake - sure, nature isn't really a priority (considering it can well outlast humanity in even the dreariest of hypothetical scenarios), but the environment is a factor in human advancement nonetheless. Perhaps this topic should be more explored.
Also, look at these:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/global-warming-benefits-outweigh-harms
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/01/02/ news-alert-to-climate-alarmists-most-arctic-species-will-benefit-from-global-warming/ (remove space)
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/greenland-reaps-benefits-of-global-warming-8555241.html
These articles essentially say that, if global warming even exists, it is very much a blessing and not a curse, especially for the advancement of humankind.
Just privatize stuff and it will function as property, then people would theoretically not be able to pollute it.
That solves that problem.
There should be an increase in CO2 emissions in order to better sustain plant life - the less than 1% in our atmosphere now is saddening. If we're really trying to avoid near-negligible changes in average temperature, we'd need to curb methane emissions, which liberals don't seem to think is feasible. Little do they know, private companies already have several possible solutions, many of which are already being tried (one involves genetically modifying grass to not produce an enzyme that triggers a methane...release...in cows).
Sunspot activity is the cause of sporadic increases in temperature.
Yep, that pesky sun couldn't keep a perfectly uniform light output to save its extremely long life.
If the liberals were completely in charge, they'd try and tax the sun, then we'd have a shortage of sunlight.
I'm not getting a tan? >:( THANKS OBAMA
If the liberals were completely in charge, there'd be no CO2, meaning there would be no plants. But, hey, at least the planet would be dozens of degrees cooler between the reduced sunlight and lack of greenhouse gases.
My great- great- great- uncle was Thomason Jefferson. And my cousin-uncle Jon Meacham wrote a book about him. "The art of Power"
Also, just got a message for a queer named Tafoo that want my region to turn gay.....
Thafoo
What is this I don't even
I know he says he will report me because I told him he was a fag...
No, I mean what are you talking about?
He just said " you are not allowed to say fu*k you or f*g in a tg. love you too sweetcheeks."
In his region he is the Dicktator..... need I say more???!?!?
Okay, I give up trying to understand you.
A gay named Thafoo randomly telegrammed me saying he wanted the region to be gay. So I told him off.
DAMMMIT SPELLCHECK!! Sorry about t grammar and spelling.
Maybe global warming is caused by the hot air politicians spit out.
GAWDDAMMIT! IT DID IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Hey NST
Let's not fill the rmb with gerndarnit....
Removing politicians from the equation will ruin our planet's sustainability *nods*
Removing them will actually elongate our planet's stability. It's the politicians that fire the nukes, you know.
True
Why don't we put them all in a five mile wide box and give them guns and many idiotic people.
All the conversation happens when I'm asleep! ;(
Anyone there?
Yeah, but I'm a bit busy this morning.
I'm here, what do you want to talk about?
Nothing in particular. But I'm very, very bored :I
Post self-deleted by Wolfdon.
Why do you like Ronald Reagan?
What's not to like about him? :P He reinvigorated American pride, helped to end the Cold War, protected liberty and democracy across the world, had the balls to call the Soviet Union an Evil Empire, started the second-longest peacetime economic expansion in American history and limited the size of government.
What's good about democracy?
Why should I be proud about America?
TG me later I'm off.
Democracy in a general sense: a government by the people, for the people, of the people.
It's a people ruled by the majority. The majority is sometimes WRONG.
False, this form of democracy is constitutional republicanism, checking the mob.
Please explain?
What Liberosia said. A republic is the rule of law, and in its purest term democracy means rule by majority. That is why that term was never mentioned in the US Constitution. But democracy as it's known today may be flawed, but isn't rule by the people better than power in the hands of a few?
No. Who can change the constitution through voting? The majority.
The Constitution has either allowed the current government to exist or has failed to prevent it. Either way, it is not a document I am proud of. The Articles of the Confederation where much more effective as preserving liberty.
It's not the specific document, it's the principle.
That a sheet of paper defends my rights? Good on that paper, bad in practice. Look at the Presidents. Who follows the Constitution? Very, Very few. Government never follows it's own laws.
Wow, the anti-American sentiment here is staggering. I know that our current government is nothing to be proud of, but the federal government does not determine our national identity. It's all about the individual.
Also, no sheet of paper can defend your rights for you. The DoI and the US Const. make it clear that the individual has to take his rights for himself - freedom is not free. That's why I love America - unlike the founders of all other countries I'm aware of, the founders here understood that there will always be a challenge the individual has to overcome, and that challenge is often tyranny.
I second what Idealism said. Again I'll say that if you think that America is so bad and sweltering in socialistic oppression, then you'd think Europe is North Korea.
I'm not saying Europe is North Korea, I'm saying that Ronald Reagan was one of the best tyrants ever made.
I was talking to NST. But please, enlighten me as to how one of our greatest democratically elected leaders was a tyrant.
(And when I say our, I mean the world's.)
He didn't protect our rights. (And when I say our I mean the world's)
That's a pretty vague statement. But I don't see how bringing democracy to Latin America, encouraging global economic liberties and ending the Cold War didn't protect the people's rights.
On an unrelated note, this video here is quite weird, but it's got a truthful message behind it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8O7V-WxWQ
Any elected official is either a corporate figurehead or a tool and embodiment of the mob rule state.
A sheet of paper means jack sh1t when governments arrest, steal, kill and fight wars for special interests. The constitution is great, just no president or very few congressmen actually know what it means, or they do know and intentionally defy it.
@Pevvania
Democracy is a bad thing. Bringing mob rule to dictatorships only makes the government bigger, because the majority is now the tyrant rather than one person.
What economic liberty? He still taxed, starting the trend for national debt and feeding the military-industrial complex is not really economic liberty. He was pretty moderate. Deregulation and lower taxes are good, but not enough. No regulation or taxes is the way to go. You know, Thou shalt not steal....
Ending the Cold War....you mean just watching the Soviet Union collapse? The USA did very little besides waste money in proxy wars, increase national debt and ultimately VIOLATE people's rights to do so.
@Wolfdon
How do men in costumes protect our rights? The protect and serve the sh1t out of us when they beat us with police batons and shoot tear gas at us! In the name of national security, of course.
@CI
I'm anti-government. Anti-state. Or states. The existence of government anywhere is simply violent. So, America in it's long history (actually since the Constitution was signed) was an experiment to see if small government could work. Call me anti-American all you want. Maybe I don't believe that the arbitrary lines we live in don't actually mean anything, and that we would be better off without them?
Sadly, the Constitution has either failed to prevent our current failures or has allowed them to exist. Therefore, I would say that the Constitution has failed to protect our rights. Perhaps, we could advance in human history to another stage, by getting even smaller government, or maybe, just maybe, no government. Because, There's no government quite like no government.
NST, I've explained a million times over that the debt increase during Reagan's Presidency was not his fault. He tried numerous times to balance the budget, even proposing a constitutional amendment for it, but every single time he was struck down by the Democrats.
You can't say that he didn't make American citizens more economically free. The highest tax rate before 1981 was something like 70%! Ya have to remember that the anti-tax movement wasn't a big deal then. He recognised that government is a neccessary evil for protection and justice.
In the beginning of anarchy, there's total chaos. Riots, looting, murder and death would be a common sight. Helpless, paralysed veterans living on their own, with just the government to take care of them, would suddenly find that Miss Lucy isn't coming round at eight 8 o'clock anymore and would die. The poor would invade the homes of the rich, take their money then form gangs. Few people would be entirely safe, and most people would have to stay in one location to defend their home. But eventually the destruction and death would recede, and factions would emerge. As demonstrated by your Fallout RP, one faction would eventually emerge the strongest and establish an even more tyrannical government to replace the last one. Being the son of a businessman who's had a lot of his potential wealth sapped by a bloated bureaucracy, I hate government and taxes as well. But it's a neccessary evil.
And the Cold War ended before the Soviet Union collapsed through diplomacy and the arms treaties of the late 80s. A major factor of the USSR's collapse was the huge cost of the Afghanistan War, and it could be argued they lost that due to American supplying and training of the mujahideen.
"He didn't protect our rights."
A weak thesis considering he brought an end to the Cold War, utilized diplomacy and a position of strength to end Soviet aggression, collaborated with other world leaders to make strides in freeing the world economy, and ultimately used his government position far more responsibly than Obama is using it now.
"So, America in it's long history (actually since the Constitution was signed) was an experiment to see if small government could work."
It did, and quite well until the American Civil War (and, if the letters the Founding Fathers sent each other are any indication, they anticipated a civil war and thought of the nation as an experiment up to that point, as they couldn't predict the outcome). Lincoln effectively killed states' rights and most presidents after him further bureaucratized the federal government, which at that point was an entirely new institution pretending to be the pre-Civil-War one.
I would have called for a longer experiment.
"Sadly, the Constitution has either failed to prevent our current failures or has allowed them to exist. Therefore, I would say that the Constitution has failed to protect our rights."
If you're counting on a piece of paper to protect your rights for you, you won't have any. It was written to inform, not to dictate. People have a right (that they must exercise in order to keep it) to know what their rights are.
I'm on Chatzy.
http://www.chatzy.com/84081373772932
Liber, ya really gotta put that in the WFE :P
@Pevvania
That is not anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of authority. No rulers. When you attack someone, or steal from them, you are therefore saying you have authority to do that to them, which means you become a ruler. Any "Mad Max Anarchy" you see is more accurately described as primitivist anarchy, which is the real 'Survival of the Fittest' world.
Anarchy in a sense of free market anarchy is based on the concept that people should work together through voluntary exchange. Voluntary being the key word. It isn't voluntary if you're killed or stolen from, because you obviously aren't voluntarily trading. Anarchism is capitalism at it's greatest. Any form of statism is basically saying that statist ideas are SOOOOOO good that they have to be mandatory. Anarchism is self-government. You are the owner of yourself.
@CI
Looking deeper into the Civil War, I used to support the Confederacy. Now I realize it is basically a corporate state. The Plantation owners governed everything. Not much better than the Northern tyrants, but still inevitably authoritarian with a different structure that gives a bad name to libertarians everywhere.
No. America became Authoritarian the second the Constitution was signed. The Articles of the Confederation were a much freer set of rights.
True, I preferred the Articles of Confederation...but it had its fair share of problems. They should not have gone so far as to reform them just seven years after they were ratified, nor should they have used the convention to cheat ratification.
I'd love to be proven wrong and I'd love the idea of anarcho-capitalism to actually work. But until I see it in practice, I really don't see any way it could function.
@Pevvania
What you describe ironically is exactly what statism is: One faction rising to the top as a tyrannical state. That is all statism is. War, violence, dispair, theft, coercion, murder, slavery, Authority is the backwards concept that encourages collective mentality and oversocialization.
@CI
Exactly. I still don't like the premise of government, but the Articles of the Confederation are much easier to agree with. That is REAL small government.
What do you propose for...reversing...the government America has now?
@CI
Slowly return to a more confederal government, then move slowly down to more local level. In about thirty years dissolve the Federal Government, secede and return to states. Then, in the far future, dissolve state governments. But the thing is, anarchism has to be near global to work. Dissolving all governments.
Minarchism doesn't require a global scale.
Minarchism would be the last stage of government. Trying to convince others to become minarchist, to the point where most countries are minarchist. Then, a slow and orderly dissolution of the state.
It would be difficult to pull off on account of the number of criminals, faction-lovers, and militants of society.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.