Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

The New United States wrote:I have two final exams today, but I am so done. My desire to study is currently at 0.

Good luck!

The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Good luck!

Thanks!

Rateria

The left in the 90s: war is bad

The left under Bush: war is bad

The left under Obama: uhhhh

The left now: if Trump doesn't bomb the Middle East and invade Russia he's a traitor

Miencraft, Narland

LOL the fact that I post most of this stuff while I'm at work shows I have a fantastic job

Narland, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:LOL the fact that I post most of this stuff while I'm at work shows I have a fantastic job

What sort of job do you have?

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:My midterm exams got cancelled due to snow days

Now that's a nae nae moment

Pevvania, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Rotgeheim wrote:I think you mean anti-miscegenationist, my lad. Miscegenation isn't racial classification by blood, it's procreation between two people of differing races. It's actually Latin for "mix" + "race".

Miscegenation is the correct term as they advocated the Miscegenation Laws (banning miscegenation) through mandatory Marriage Licences and classifying the children of Miscegenation on Certificates of Live Birth as half-breed, quadroon, etc. The common law did not support these concepts and had to be backdoored via Louisianian Justinian civil code and then passed by civil statute through each state legislature.

Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:No matter where you are that seems to be the case. My theater class in high school was very left wing. So far so infact that the other few conservatives/libertarians kept it a secret after they saw that I became a pariah after I ran my mouth in a argument about free speech.

Nearly the same thing in my movie/theatre arts director's classes. I still passed out complimentary copies of The Law, Road to Serfdom, and Mainstring of Human Progress to any who wanted a copies to read, but I suspect many used them to light the bonfires at their parties. Those who actually read a book and wanted another would also get a complimentary Constitution, Bill of Rights, and FIJA Jurors Manual. I was surprised at how many in the Theatre Arts were closet Libertarians.

My university was supposed to be conservative but it was nominally so. We were able to select most of our professors if registering early enough. I got as many classes by certain professors, one from Poland who escaped the Soviet Union under razor wire, and another who was smuggled into Berlin, and even one who escaped from Brigham Young U. (That last one was a joke for those who think BYU is necessarily conservative.)

The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Pevvania wrote:Yeah I don't know why RAs are a) disproportionately left-leaning and B) trained to follow the leftist narrative. One of my friends (and VP of the Republicans here) is an RA and is subjected to that BS on a daily basis.

It was funny living in the ag dorm last year with all these red blooded conservatives and safe space posters put up on the walls by RAs.

Even in k-12 the hall monitors are either leftist wannabees, schoolyard bullies who somehow became teachers pets, or like the shiny whistle that came with the job. I was the clueless kid who thought it might help to make friends. Nobody likes the kid with the whistle and shiny vest.

The New United States, Rateria

Miencraft wrote:I haven't seen a single person advocating for excessive restrictions on legal immigration

Well...

Pevvania wrote:This is why we need an ideological purity test for immigrants. Like any government program, this is open to abuse, but I see no better way of controlling the inflow of parasitic immigrants.

Pevvania wrote:Coming to America isn't a right, it's a privilige, so I think I have every reason to shake my head at people that come here from terrible countries and vote for the same policies that made that country terrible.

I can see the logic in expecting immigrants to adopt the philosophy of American exceptionalism if they wish to reside in America, or supporting the GOP if they want Republican lawmakers to look after their interests. Perhaps you may not even see measures intended to enforce these expectations to be excessive. It's just that I highly doubt that this is the middle ground you might think it is.

Miencraft wrote:I don't really seem to recall the concept of the American Dream ever promising anything or, indeed, even having anything to deliver. It's literally just an expression of the system we have here. For the most part, if you're good at what you do and you go out and do it, you'll probably end up pretty well. As with literally everything, there are exceptions, but the exceptions don't really render the concept any less valid.

Jadentopian Order wrote:I'm not going to involve myself much in this discussion because I don't have an opinion besides that I like immigration, but I do just want to ask what you'd define as the American dream.

I think typically a lot of people interpret it as the ability to gain wealth and live an easy life. I don't really agree with that, I see it more as the ability to do what you want with your life without being oppressed and with full dignity. It's right in our declaration of independence, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". America was (probably still is), the place to go when you wanted that. Immigrants from across the world fled here to pursue their dreams without fear of persecution.

Pevvania wrote:I agree, the American Dream is about self-determination, but I think his point is about the economic aspect of it: freedom of opportunity to pursue a good job and a good income. And the fact is that bar a couple of exceptions, like maybe Switzerland, America is objectively the best country in the world for this. Both the left and the right agree there are problems and ways to improve it, but it doesn't negate the fact that the poor and middle class do tremendously well.

Supposing you're referring to me, that would be her point. And, indeed, my point is about this ideal of freedom of opportunity - the concept of the gifted, talented, and industrious having the capacity to rise from rags to riches. Perhaps it wouldn't ring so hollow if so many of those who claim they've realized this dream weren't so intent on closing the door behind them; we should be doing more to encourage the next generation of entrepreneurs to seize their destiny, not less.

Freedom from oppression is a salient factor, of course, but that is perhaps not so easy to legislate. Besides, persecution will be a fact of life for immigrants while jingoism persists within our populace, and it will be federally enforced while the current administration remains in office. You see, I don't think that the "bad hombres" rhetoric was some repeated mistake or flub on the part of the president; it was a deliberate attempt to manufacture a crisis, to give the populace an "other" to oppose, for the sake of production and industry, and I expect we'll be reaping the consequences of imagining such a threat for years after Trump leaves office. One such consequence, of course, is that it's necessary for those who move here to disabuse themselves of the notion that they are truly free from oppression.

Miencraft wrote:I believe you're conflating the fact that people do indeed know what is best for themselves with the erroneous assumption that anyone could ever know what is best for anyone else.

Those are two very different things.

While I do feel that individuals are typically capable of looking after their own self-interest, the same cognitive biases that help them help themselves cause them to struggle greatly when it comes to comprehending and objectively assessing what is best for a group, and this challenge approaches the impossible as this group incorporates more and more people. It can be assumed that no political system currently exists that would be of optimal benefit to the whole of humanity, and that the likelihood of any ideologue discovering or inventing such a system, given the sum of our collective knowledge thus far, is next to nil. I posit that an ideology cannot have merit if it does not make those odds more favorable.

Even within smaller constituencies, there is no pleasing some people - the diversity of values a person can have is far too great. There will always be those who lash out, protest, cheat the system, or commit crimes because what they want is fundamentally opposed to what the system wants. I guess that it could be said that part of what makes America great is that our governments, while often inefficient, take extensive measures to address the needs and desires of as much of the populace at any one time as it can - that our republic was designed to govern people of all creeds and walks of life - but this system, too, is corruptible, and even now is being thwarted by the zero-sum game Republicans and Democrats pointedly insist they aren't playing.

As Pevvania says:

Pevvania wrote:I think any immigrant that votes Democrat just because of petty short-term interest is being incredibly ignorant, destructive and selfish.

This is something all voters here are guilty of to some small degree. In the short term we are encouraged to choose the major party that best represents our respective demographics in order for ourselves and those like us to get a bigger slice of the pie; Republicans excuse this as growing the pie while conveniently refusing to explain why it's necessary to concentrate more wealth and power in the hands of the rich to do so, and Democrats claim that they're endeavoring to divide the slices more equally while hiding their true disinterest in attaining a goal that would necessitate their own obsolescence. A free and equal people would have no reason to perpetuate this competition that so divides them and threatens their livelihoods, but those vying for political power desperately need it to continue - ideological purism is their justification for maintaining the illusion of a zero-sum game, and by buying into it in the short term, we are selling ourselves out in the long term.

This is one of the many failures of ideology. The adherents of any given one can't even secure their own prosperity against the corruptive ambitions of those who desire power, and the more extreme they are - the more insistent that they are the cure to society's ills - the greater the death toll their implementation causes. To entrust the world to any in particular would be madness.

Miencraft wrote:That and I would also argue that the advancement of human civilization has absolutely nothing to do with the sort of unification you seem to be talking about. The greatest and most significant accomplishments of mankind have occurred because of competition between people, nations, and ideologies. Humans by nature cannot accomplish the things you are proposing - those primal instincts you mentioned, they're why we progress most effectively when in direct competition with each other (and, indeed, so does all of nature), so while we should indeed aim to cooperate where possible, the tribal nature of humanity is inescapable and will always lead to groups coming together based on shared opinions, and will always lead to the search for truth within and among those groups.

Then we are doomed to perish when there are no more enemies to defeat or worlds to conquer.

That is, of course, unless we evolve beyond our reliance on this tribalism. For that, we must learn how to grow and change in the absence of an adversary.

Pevvania wrote:Legal immigration and free trade expand the economy and actually result in a bigger economy and higher incomes for native citizens.

A logical assessment. If only more in the GOP did not see the construction of an enormous wall as a necessary step in ensuring economic prosperity... that said, it doesn't seem like freeing the market is very high on the priority list of the modern GOP.

Skaveria wrote:Have you looked into anarcho-transhumanism? It's a much better thing to be than a socialist and adresses the future in a way I think you'd appreciate.

Being better than a socialist is not only a matter of opinion but one that misses the entire point - this assessment of ideologies as being superior to one another perpetuates the division and strife within our society. That's not to say that something cannot be learned or adopted from the tenets and values of an ideology, but adhering to one is little more than self-deception regardless of how noble or reasonable it may sound.

Highway Eight wrote:For the record: I regularly bash extremism, close-mindedness, and ideological bullcrap...

I also tend to regularly spout extremist, close-minded, ideological bullcrap immediately or soon afterwards.

That's a force of habit on my part. I used to espouse conservative - and later, libertarian - ideologies, and my "extreme nihilism" is something of a front for disappointed idealism.

Jadentopian Order wrote:I'm going to ignore all the other reasons for disagreeing because they really don't matter and I don't want to sit here and go back and forth lol, but I really do not trust any government in the world to tell me what ideology is "pure". Beyond that I don't even think a government should be telling people that. We have absolute freedom of expression for a reason.

That's my main issue with that idea, too - no ideology is worth that amount of trust, and even if one were, no government is incorruptible enough to adhere to it in perpetuity.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:By and large most americans, GOP or not, support a path way to citizenship for those already illegally here. That is hardly the 'deport them all' attitude you seem to portray.

The president we elected could have fooled me. If so much of our population is for sensible immigration reform, then why are we acquiescing to the demands of nativists when it comes to determining policy?

The United States Of Patriots wrote:When you say haves and have nots. Are you referring to wealthy vs poor?

If so how is your critique fundamentally different from marx's?

I'm referring to the two main factions of American politics that correspond loosely to Republicans and Democrats, but incorporate individuals who don't identify with either: those who would force the rich to give to the poor and those who would force the poor to give to the rich. Is there a middle ground? Sure - but it's not as extensive as you might think.

So much of our system depends on the unsung mandatory exchanges between the classes: the expectation that people, rich or poor, will buy what they need to survive, the expectation that people, rich or poor, will pay the government for public services, and other such interactions that we're tempted to sugar-coat and refer to as voluntary when the reality is that so many of our expenditures are really a Hobson's choice or even no choice at all.

Marx looked at a system much like it and saw it as so exploitative that it deserved nothing short of destruction, blamed the rich for its perpetuation simply because they were unwilling to part with their money, and invented a fanciful, sophomoric view of economics in order to "prove" the points he sought to make, and when it came time for revolutionaries to implement his ideals on a national scale, each attempt was consumed by the ambition and avarice of political opportunists who used their power to establish quasi-feudalistic ruling classes and ultimately killed millions of people.

I consider that a cautionary tale about ideological purism; he built an ideology pretty much from the ground up in opposition to injustice, but was so blind to the failings of his proposed solution that its implementation could end in no other way than bloodshed, and it did so on a massive scale. So many of us want so desperately for others to believe that we're right, to believe that our respective philosophies could change humanity for the better if only more people did the right thing, but in the end reality rejects us even if we win: our revolutions come full circle, our attempts to achieve integrity incite corruption, our will to protect the populace only endangers it, and our struggle to save the world destroys it. Our political views will not help us, especially if we intend to spread them with force.

Pevvania wrote:I am also pro-immigration, but frankly I don't want statists, leftists and Islamists coming here. At all, actually. I'm genuinely asking, what is the solution?

Those who choose to learn from history have a chance not to repeat it. While I do not know for certain the best way to combat political extremism, it seems to me that you'd have more luck with this if they were to somehow discover the folly of adherence to dangerous ideologies for themselves rather than simply being told that their beliefs are wrong - education, I think, would do more to protect society from ideological purism than prohibition.

Jadentopian Order, Highway Eight

Pevvania wrote:Also, in the last week Trump started the Opportunity and Revitalization Council, which will designate opportunity zones that will direct $100 billion of investment into marginalized communities; additionally, the Senate has passed the First Step Act, an important criminal justice reform bill that will give many non-violent and minor offenders a second chance.

But Trump is still racist

Just like all of America is, ought, and should be a Free Speech zone, every inch/cm of America should be a Free Enterprise Zone. As long as the money goes to teaching people how to be entrepreneurs, businessmen, and negotiate the corruption and strangulation/over-regulation that destroys economic incentive and innovation in infested regions that keep people oppressed, i might tolerate throwing money down that fire pit it for a short time.

Returning to sound currency would be a better incentive. Every time Congress passes a "stimulus" package they debase the currency by whatever amount they forge out their butts to monetize to their bankster cronies. The current debt will take 40 years out of the next generations productivity and inflate the currency by 50% over the next 10 to 15 years. One of the few things that Adams and Jefferson agreed upon was how startling the effect that getting rid of fiat currency had on the boost of productivity and ameliorating poverty on the country.

Another good incentive would return to criminalizing banking legerdemain and go back to honest banking (banks are one of the few institutions that are allowed to call there assets liabilities and their liabilities assets and have no incentive to engage the market wisely as congress will bail them out should they squander their depositors money) as they serve as a transfer schedule to baloon economic sectors with certificates of indebtedness called Federal Reserve Notes to their cronies and people who must show that they do not need a loan in order to receive one.

The peoples of any community can succeed and thrive on a shoestring and a prayer with hard work and a little ingenuity if they have a little know-how and when the government gets out of they way to let the enterprising young souls hang out a shingle to provide a wanted product or service. According to the SBA only 2% of businesses succeed without a business loan to cover the cost of doing business such as unexpected overhead caused by government over-regulation, poor location, lack of adequate advertising etc. Again, the laws are shielded from taking sound market risks they give loans to only those who have the collateral to cover the loan; i.e., they must prove they do not need the loan in order to receive it.

Criminal Justice reform is long overdue.

Sure, sure, Trump dons a bedsheet at night to terrorize his Jewish children, and anonymously trolls the MBDA while secretly lamenting in front of a picture of Dorian Grey that Black unemployment is the lowest in history. As Mexico is a country and not a race, I wont comment on the coyote scum who leave their pacotes in the scrubs to die of thirst after taking their money.

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria

Rateria wrote:I just thought about a question that anyone here is free to answer. What is your signature issue? For some people, it is the economy. For others, it is government waste. For me, it is the right to bear arms. Don’t get me wrong, I still care about the issues mentioned before, it’s just that I’ve done so much research on this one that I grew more knowledgeable and started caring most about this one in particular.

Returning to being a free country. Getting rid of all statism, and return to Constitutional governance. Auditing the Fed, repealing the so-called Patriot Act (no patriot in his right mind would vote for such fascist bull) and Homeland Security Act (free peoples do not have a homelands they have nations and countries); and calling on a Convention of States to rid DC of all unlawful activities.

The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:I'd like to think so, but sadly from what I've seen most immigrants end up voting Democrat. ... This is why we need an ideological purity test... We do not need parasites coming to our country to exploit it and turn it into something else. I don't care if you're black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander - we should have people coming into our country that stand for individualism and American values, and we should block anyone with bad intentions from entering our beautiful land.
I agree with blocking bad actors and those who will not swear allegiance to American Ideals, but I do not want a Central Authority determining what those "values" are or ought be. I would phrase it from the negative to the positive as 'desiring productive contributors." as parasites have to much historical baggage and can too easily be misconstrued.

Rateria, West Smolcasm

Pevvania wrote:Look, I can say from personal experience that the Trump Administration is making it harder for legal immigrants like myself to move here. ...

So yeah, I'll take deportations and restrictionism if it protects America's soul. And I think any immigrant that votes Democrat just because of petty short-term interest is being incredibly ignorant, destructive and selfish.

I have two friends from UK, one has been ensnared in red tape for 5 years from immigrating to the States because of a misunderstood procedure (religious worker/taxidermist -- i try not to think about that too hard). I keep ribbing him to fly to Mexico and come up from the southern border. The other has been trying to get here for ten years, and he might actually make it in 2020 because of the changes (*nix programmer).

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

Narland wrote:even one who escaped from Brigham Young U. (That last one was a joke for those who think BYU is necessarily conservative.)

lol

It's true, but conservatives are still very well represented at BYU. Two of my four professors this semester were Republican, and I had a professor last semester that was very openly libertarian-conservative.

Narland, Rateria

The New United States wrote:lol

It's true, but conservatives are still very well represented at BYU. Two of my four professors this semester were Republican, and I had a professor last semester that was very openly libertarian-conservative.

Wow, I had no idea you were at BYU. Cool.

The New United States, Rateria

"Being better than a socialist is not only a matter of opinion but one that misses the entire point - this assessment of ideologies as being superior to one another perpetuates the division and strife within our society. That's not to say that something cannot be learned or adopted from the tenets and values of an ideology, but adhering to one is little more than self-deception regardless of how noble or reasonable it may sound."

Well, I know it sounds dismissive to say that one ideology is superior to another, but it's true that some ways of doing things are objectively better and there's nothing to be learned from inferior ideologies. Take theocracies or feudalism for example, those ideologies are dead ends. They offer nothing at this point. I'd say communism, fascism, and more broadly, socialism, are dead ends as well. We've ran that experiment time and time again, over many cultures and many years. There's no point in having that conversation anymore. Even the Greeks figured out the fragility of the tragedy of the commons. You could call that the first critique of communal property and that was millennia ago. Our liberal democracy is the best ideology on the planet, it's been tested against all the other ideologies I've mentioned and it's the only one still standing with any shred of moral credibility.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, The United States Of Patriots

Religion pushing nuts are only bad if they are of a religion I don't like.

Asecularism is bad, but only bad if another group is pushing for it.

Secularism in all cases should not be at the forefront of our concerns. It should always be: Are they enforcing religious views I agree with? Of course those libtards would disagree, they hate my religion and don't want to enforce it.

New poll, come and vote:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=134547

Zurkerx wrote:New poll, come and vote:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=134547

Poll fixed:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=134549

The New United States, Rateria

Highway Eight wrote:Religion pushing nuts are only bad if they are of a religion I don't like.

Asecularism is bad, but only bad if another group is pushing for it.

Secularism in all cases should not be at the forefront of our concerns. It should always be: Are they enforcing religious views I agree with? Of course those libtards would disagree, they hate my religion and don't want to enforce it.

I don't think we should be focused on secularism itself. I just don't think the government should promote any particular religion, which just so happens to mean default secularism.

Skaveria wrote:I don't think we should be focused on secularism itself. I just don't think the government should promote any particular religion, which just so happens to mean default secularism.

I do think we should focus on secularism itself, as the lack of secularism requires coercion of belief and practice. There is no other option except state atheism when it comes to not promitng any particular religion, and state atheism also necessarily requires some form of coercion.

So, how are we counting the vote? Plurality or majority?

The New United States, Rateria

Venomringo wrote:So, how are we counting the vote? Plurality or majority?

I forgot that it was even running.

Miencraft, The New United States

Venomringo wrote:So, how are we counting the vote? Plurality or majority?

We should probably do a second vote narrowing it down to yes/no, and if we still have a citizenship system we should count only citizen votes.

The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:We should probably do a second vote narrowing it down to yes/no, and if we still have a citizenship system we should count only citizen votes.

No citizens whatsoever. Just a role on discord that has absolutely no meaning, especially since I was just giving it to people for a while.

Miencraft

Also, I wasn't actually taking this seriously, but if you guys want to, I guess I can...

Who remembers when Obama's secretary of defense Robert Gates wrote in a book that the president ordered the Afghanistan troop surge for political reasons and didn't believe it would actually work?

Well good job Barack, because that troop surge actually saw 73% of US combat fatalities to date - 1762 Americans killed in action compared to 630 under Bush and 17 under Trump. Thanks Obama!

The New United States

You can't really blame the president for the deep state behind him. This goes for Trump and Obama.

At least Trump has the stones to give a middle finger to the deep state occasionally.

Miencraft, Pevvania, The New United States

Lomahl voted for open borders. Any reason for that, lad?

Pevvania wrote:We should probably do a second vote narrowing it down to yes/no, and if we still have a citizenship system we should count only citizen votes.

a runoff poll between yes and weed.

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Cards are back bois!

The New United States, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

New Tampa wrote:a runoff poll between yes and weed.

that loud is always gonna win

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Well, I know it sounds dismissive to say that one ideology is superior to another, but it's true that some ways of doing things are objectively better and there's nothing to be learned from inferior ideologies. Take theocracies or feudalism for example, those ideologies are dead ends. They offer nothing at this point. I'd say communism, fascism, and more broadly, socialism, are dead ends as well. We've ran that experiment time and time again, over many cultures and many years. There's no point in having that conversation anymore. Even the Greeks figured out the fragility of the tragedy of the commons. You could call that the first critique of communal property and that was millennia ago. Our liberal democracy is the best ideology on the planet, it's been tested against all the other ideologies I've mentioned and it's the only one still standing with any shred of moral credibility.

If there's nothing to be learned, why do these concepts keep repeating themselves?

Let's take the tragedy of the commons as an example: there are finite resources that individuals have access to, and individuals doing what's best for themselves with these resources ultimately isn't what's best for the collective and will surely entail the swift depletion of these resources. Within each of the ideologies you've mentioned is a detail about human nature that might apply to such a concept: theocracy teaches us the power of guilt and suggestion over a populace, feudalism posits the commons as really the property of a monarch who may seek retribution against any who introduce negative externalities, communism makes explicit the link between the preservation of the commons and the common person's very survival, fascism employs the concept of authority to subjugate and strong-arm people into refraining from abuse, socialism takes the management of the commons out of the individual's hands in favor of more pragmatic central planning, and liberal democracy is founded on the cooperation of government and governed to freely use the commons and decide together how best to maintain them, as necessary. I'd argue that the latter of all of these is the weakest way to address the problem, even though the other ideologies rightly disgust anyone who values liberty.

Ideologies, even those that drive the first world today, aren't reliable and will inevitably be consigned to the dustbin of history without exception; an ideology is but a mere abstraction of simple human values, an incomplete answer to an existential fear. But each abstraction, each answer, is composed of ideas, some of which might serve a greater purpose than misplaced idealism when introduced in the right context. To say there is nothing more to be learned from other ideologies, that one in particular is certain to carry humanity into the future if implemented on a global scale, is short-sighted, reckless, and ignorant. We may yet have need of such a diversity of thought as the world has now; in any case, the cost of endeavoring to disrupt it - as opponents of fascism and communism would surely attest - is millions of human lives.

Venomringo wrote:So, how are we counting the vote? Plurality or majority?

Dragon Break rules: when the poll concludes we will have, won't have, would be apathetic to having, and will smoke weed in a regional government all at the same time.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:You can't really blame the president for the deep state behind him. This goes for Trump and Obama.

At least Trump has the stones to give a middle finger to the deep state occasionally.

It might be the cynic in me, but I expect that if a deep state did exist, they'd have deliberately picked #45 and he'd know it. In any case, I doubt the middle finger's for anything other than keeping up appearances.

New Tampa wrote:a runoff poll between yes and weed.

Two very compelling options. I was almost tempted to go for the latter.

weed 2020 baby

Rateria

Zurkerx wrote:Poll fixed:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=134549

Should had a shut down the government and leave it there option

Zurkerx, Rateria

West Smolcasm wrote:If there's nothing to be learned, why do these concepts keep repeating themselves?

There is plenty to learn. There is a reason that these ideologies have failed. And a reason why they will continue, if tried, to fail. That doesn't change the fact that some ideologies are objectively worse than others

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Rateria

in fact it seems only to support the idea

The New United States

West Smolcasm wrote:If there's nothing to be learned, why do these concepts keep repeating themselves?

Let's take the tragedy of the commons as an example: there are finite resources that individuals have access to, and individuals doing what's best for themselves with these resources ultimately isn't what's best for the collective and will surely entail the swift depletion of these resources. Within each of the ideologies you've mentioned is a detail about human nature that might apply to such a concept: theocracy teaches us the power of guilt and suggestion over a populace, feudalism posits the commons as really the property of a monarch who may seek retribution against any who introduce negative externalities, communism makes explicit the link between the preservation of the commons and the common person's very survival, fascism employs the concept of authority to subjugate and strong-arm people into refraining from abuse, socialism takes the management of the commons out of the individual's hands in favor of more pragmatic central planning, and liberal democracy is founded on the cooperation of government and governed to freely use the commons and decide together how best to maintain them, as necessary. I'd argue that the latter of all of these is the weakest way to address the problem, even though the other ideologies rightly disgust anyone who values liberty.

Ideologies, even those that drive the first world today, aren't reliable and will inevitably be consigned to the dustbin of history without exception; an ideology is but a mere abstraction of simple human values, an incomplete answer to an existential fear. But each abstraction, each answer, is composed of ideas, some of which might serve a greater purpose than misplaced idealism when introduced in the right context. To say there is nothing more to be learned from other ideologies, that one in particular is certain to carry humanity into the future if implemented on a global scale, is short-sighted, reckless, and ignorant. We may yet have need of such a diversity of thought as the world has now; in any case, the cost of endeavoring to disrupt it - as opponents of fascism and communism would surely attest - is millions of human lives.

Dragon Break rules: when the poll concludes we will have, won't have, would be apathetic to having, and will smoke weed in a regional government all at the same time.

It might be the cynic in me, but I expect that if a deep state did exist, they'd have deliberately picked #45 and he'd know it. In any case, I doubt the middle finger's for anything other than keeping up appearances.

Two very compelling options. I was almost tempted to go for the latter.

Well you can't just weld all these ideologies together and just assume it'll all work out. Most of them are incompatible with each other. You can't just sprinkle a little Facism there and a little liberty there. It doesn't work like that. Who gets to decide what ideology is correct at any given time? Why would they know? Did we elect them, were they appointed? Did we just test everyone's IQ and pick the person who tested the highest and assume they have all the answers?

Miencraft, Rateria

West Smolcasm wrote:Ideologies, even those that drive the first world today, aren't reliable and will inevitably be consigned to the dustbin of history without exception

Okay but what is your basis for this other than nihilistic idealism?

West Smolcasm wrote:Dragon Break rules: when the poll concludes we will have, won't have, would be apathetic to having, and will smoke weed in a regional government all at the same time.

Tiber Septim for President of Libertatem 2020.

The New United States, The United States Of Patriots

Happy Christmas Eve Eve Everybody.

The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Jadentopian Order

Narland wrote:Happy Christmas Eve Eve Everybody.

beat me to it, its christmas eve here on the east coast

The New United States, Rateria

Narland wrote:Happy Christmas Eve Eve Everybody.

Christmas Adam?

The New United States, Rateria, Highway Eight

Blessed Yule to all my liberty loving pagans.

Rateria

I have a very controversial statement I'd like to make.

Taco Bell > Chipotle

The New United States, Rateria, Fascist Dred

Pevvania wrote:I have a very controversial statement I'd like to make.

Taco Bell > Chipotle

Taco Bell is good value, but I'd rather have a Chipotle burrito than anything on the Taco Bell menu.

Cafe Rio > Chipotle > Taco Bell

Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Christmas Adam?

*Ba dum tis*

The New United States, The United States Of Patriots

The New United States wrote:Taco Bell is good value, but I'd rather have a Chipotle burrito than anything on the Taco Bell menu.

Cafe Rio > Chipotle > Taco Bell

***Never one to shy from opining food choices, Narland prefers Macheezmo Mouse > Los Aispuro Pollos > Los Betos > Chipotle > and Fijado Fillipe's elusive unlicensed taco truck to Del Taco > Taco Johns > Taco Time > cooking up my own from a local carniceria> anything but Taco Bell.***

The New United States, Rateria

I see Denmark is requiring new citizens to shake hands... at least they don't kiss both cheeks. Now is the time to implement something innovative like the requiring the Hokey Pokey for new airport arrivals, or sniffing each other's er... necks on a first date. The social engineering aspects are boundless...

Of course naturalizing those who actually want to become part of your nation's civilization and follow it's language, culture, customs, and mores instead of replacing it would be the best option.

Merry Christmas Libertatem!

Pevvania, Narland, The New United States, Rateria, Fascist Dred, Jadentopian Order

Merry christmas all

Narland, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Fascist Dred

Merry Christmas!

Narland, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Merry Christmas everyone.

Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Fröhlichste Weihnochdn, Libertatem!

Narland, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Frohe Weihnachten und ein frohes neues Jahr. Mögen alle Bierkrüge frostig und strahlend sein. Lassen Sie betrunkene Skriptautoren niemals Weihnachtsbotschaften in Sprachen eingeben, die nicht verstanden werden.

Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Post self-deleted by The United States Of Patriots.

Post self-deleted by The United States Of Patriots.

*legalizes consensual cannibalism*

*classified as anarchy*

*suprised Pikachu*

Rotgeheim, Rateria

Guess we're starting a runofff

Rateria

Narland wrote:Frohe Weihnachten und ein frohes neues Jahr. Mögen alle Bierkrüge frostig und strahlend sein. Lassen Sie betrunkene Skriptautoren niemals Weihnachtsbotschaften in Sprachen eingeben, die nicht verstanden werden.

I konn des ned machn, Oida!

Would Nixon winning the 1960 election have prevented the Great Society and Vietnam War?

Narland, The New United States, Rateria

Pevvania wrote:Would Nixon winning the 1960 election have prevented the Great Society and Vietnam War?

I imagine that the Great Society at least could have been avoided, since Johnson would never have replaced Kennedy and assuming that Nixon would have won re-election. Not sure about the Vietnam War, since American involvement had already begun during the Eisenhower administration. Perhaps Nixon wouldn't have escalated it like Johnson did, but I can't say. I'd guess that we still would have gotten involved.

It's interesting to think how different America would be if just an election or two had been different. Where would we be if FDR didn't give in to the influence of socialist advisers? Where would we be if Robert Taft beat Eisenhower for the Republican nomination? If Nixon beat Kennedy? I think we'd be in a way better place as a nation.

Pevvania, Rateria

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Pevvania wrote:Would Nixon winning the 1960 election have prevented the Great Society and Vietnam War?

Statism in Control of Both Parties

No, because LBJ would have still been Senate Majority Leader, the Democrats held the Congress (supermajorities iirc) and sway with the Supreme Court. All that legislation would have still gone in front of the Presidential desk, sans the Civil Rights Act. Nixon had already been turned from Goldwater's Conservatism to Rockefeller's Progressivists (Moderate Socialists) (whom insisted that "they would drag America "kicking and screaming" into Socialism if they had to) as we traditional Conservatives (Goldwater/Reagan/Ron Paul types) were reactionary relics of the past that made up less than 45% of the GOP. That GOP didn't mind a little bit of Socialism as long as it was for Mom, baseball, Chevrolet and apple pie unlike the Godless Pinko Commie Socialism of Mao and Khrushchev.

It would have been hell because not only would we have the "urban renewal" that blighted the inner cities into ghettos, but "rural restructuring" that would have more quickly destroyed what had been our family run farms, ranches, mines, timber, and oil companies. We would have got wage and price controls, OSHA, and the EPA a decade and a half earlier. The 1960 GOP wanted the Federal government involved "minimally" at the local level (in just about everything) to make things fair, as if that was actually a sane and workable concept. Worse we probably would have gotten an Cabinet level independent Department of Intelligence controlling the FCC, Ma Bell (the national phone system), PBS, and VOA -- kiss private picket cell phones pioneers that became the basis for our cellular networks, and the internet as it became goodbye.

With Democrats in control of all branches of the Federal Government the Conservatives and Republicans (think little r) in the GOP (neither the majority nor in power) were able to rally and stand against both Socialism and Communism. Had Nixon 1960 succeeded those elements probably would have been lulled to sleep much like what happened in the 70s with Nixon, and again with Bush 41, and yet again with Bush 43 as Statist elements of the Beltway GOP progressed us closer to tyranny.

Viet-NIMH

The Viet-Nam War was already happening and the cards had already been dealt. The question was how much of an ante were we willing to risk. The DOD was firmly entrenched by the MIC, and Eisenhower (like LBJ) thought it could be won quickly. If Nixon followed the advice of the Establishment (which Nixon had become) we would have continued to escalate to contain Communism.

Possible outcomes. Nixon would have had a Reagan moment and pulled us out after the Dien attack that led to the Gulf of Tonkin (had he been reelected); or he would have followed the advice of MacAurthur to present a case to Congress to commit to an all out war (including the nuking of China if necessary); or brokering a deal and partitioning up SE Asia into client states like FDR did to Europe at Yalta. But anyway it can be diced, backing out of Viet-Nam in 1960/1961 didn't seem to be on the Washingtion Beltway's radar, even though troop involvement in Indochina was immensely unpopular with the rest of America.

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

Post self-deleted by Narland.

New poll in Zentari, come and vote:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=134821

The New United States, Rateria

immigration good

Also we should definitely do a new government, but we should try something completely different. Third (fourth?) time’s the charm!

Skaveria

So I'm assuming Weed is no government?

Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:So I'm assuming Weed is no government?

No, Weed is Weed.

If Weed wins, Weed happens. We establish Weed.

Rateria

Narland wrote:Statism in Control of Both Parties

No, because LBJ would have still been Senate Majority Leader, the Democrats held the Congress (supermajorities iirc) and sway with the Supreme Court. All that legislation would have still gone in front of the Presidential desk, sans the Civil Rights Act. Nixon had already been turned from Goldwater's Conservatism to Rockefeller's Progressivists (Moderate Socialists) (whom insisted that "they would drag America "kicking and screaming" into Socialism if they had to) as we traditional Conservatives (Goldwater/Reagan/Ron Paul types) were reactionary relics of the past that made up less than 45% of the GOP. That GOP didn't mind a little bit of Socialism as long as it was for Mom, baseball, Chevrolet and apple pie unlike the Godless Pinko Commie Socialism of Mao and Khrushchev.

It would have been hell because not only would we have the "urban renewal" that blighted the inner cities into ghettos, but "rural restructuring" that would have more quickly destroyed what had been our family run farms, ranches, mines, timber, and oil companies. We would have got wage and price controls, OSHA, and the EPA a decade and a half earlier. The 1960 GOP wanted the Federal government involved "minimally" at the local level (in just about everything) to make things fair, as if that was actually a sane and workable concept. Worse we probably would have gotten an independent Department of Intelligence controlling the FCC, Ma Bell (the national phone system), PBS, and VOA -- kiss private picket cell phones pioneers that became the basis for our cellular networks, and the internet as it became goodbye.

With Democrats in control of all branches of the Federal Government the Conservatives and Republicans (think little r) in the GOP (neither the majority nor in power) were able to rally and stand against both Socialism and Communism. Had Nixon 1960 succeeded those elements probably would have been lulled to sleep much like what happened in the 70s with Nixon, and again with Bush 41, and yet again with Bush 43 as Statist elements of the Beltway GOP progressed us closer to tyranny.

Viet-NIMH

The Viet-Nam War was already happening and the cards had already been dealt. The question was how much of an ante were we willing to risk. The DOD was firmly entrenched by the MIC, and Eisenhower (like LBJ) thought it could be won quickly. If Nixon followed the advice of the Establishment (which Nixon had become) we would have continued to escalate to contain Communism.

Possible outcomes. Nixon would have had a Reagan moment and pulled us out after the Dien attack that led to the Gulf of Tonkin (had he been reelected); or he would have followed the advice of MacAurthur to present a case to Congress to commit to an all out war (including the nuking of China if necessary); or brokering a deal and partitioning up SE Asia into client states like FDR did to Europe at Yalta. But anyway it can be diced, backing out of Viet-Nam in 1960/1961 didn't seem to be on the Washingtion Beltway's radar, even though troop involvement in Indochina was immensely unpopular with the rest of America.

I am not a Nixon fan in any way, in fact I think he was one of the 20th Century's worst presidents for the reasons you outlined, but I don't know if we would've got the Great Society if it weren't for Johnson. This was his passion, and he had an uncanny ability to push legislation through Congress. 96% of his legislative proposals were adopted, which is an absolutely incredible feat. While Nixon was perfectly happy to enlarge the government, he was not much of an ideologue and had little concern for domestic issues. I doubt we would have seen the huge growth in government we got in the mid-to-late 60s if Nixon had been elected president.

I don't know much about Nixon's position on the war before his 1968 presidential campaign, but yeah, it's still likely we would have got involved anyway. The buildup to war is far more bipartisan in nature than many would have us believe. Take, for example, Clinton's numerous flirtations with Iraq in the late 90s that ultimately laid the groundwork for the 2003 invasion.

The New United States, Rateria

Anybody wishing to fight against Communists in a raid at minor, please telegram me. Mission led by the Federation Of Conservative Nations.

The New United States, San Carlos Islands

New Waldensia wrote:Anybody wishing to fight against Communists in a raid at minor, please telegram me. Mission led by the Federation Of Conservative Nations.

I spend my free time pwning internet commies

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Pevvania wrote:I am not a Nixon fan in any way, in fact I think he was one of the 20th Century's worst presidents for the reasons you outlined, but I don't know if we would've got the Great Society if it weren't for Johnson. This was his passion, and he had an uncanny ability to push legislation through Congress. 96% of his legislative proposals were adopted, which is an absolutely incredible feat. While Nixon was perfectly happy to enlarge the government, he was not much of an ideologue and had little concern for domestic issues. I doubt we would have seen the huge growth in government we got in the mid-to-late 60s if Nixon had been elected president.

I don't know much about Nixon's position on the war before his 1968 presidential campaign, but yeah, it's still likely we would have got involved anyway. The buildup to war is far more bipartisan in nature than many would have us believe. Take, for example, Clinton's numerous flirtations with Iraq in the late 90s that ultimately laid the groundwork for the 2003 invasion.

The main thing is that all that legislation (for what LBJ called his Great Society) had been in the pipe since at least 1954 just waiting to be slid in under other measures or grandstanding the right moment (as with LBJ who put unique twists on it). It probably would not have been called the "Great Society" especially under Nixon who called his 1968 plan "New Federalism" which planned to devolve the Great Society to the State level on paper, but kept the earmarks at the national level and strict regulatory Federal oversight intact (basically a Federal power grab over State institutions). Nixon waffled on his program due to the horrible state of the economy and fake energy crisis. From the 50s Progressives in both parties were hell bent in shoving these packets of legislation down our throats on their schedule.

"Making the World Safe For Democracy" and its myriad incarnations (New Deal, Great Society, Vision for America) wasn't just about opposing militant Communism (or bogeyman of the month) nor has it ever been about making the world free in the Conservative/Libertarian/Classical Liberal sense but domestically in particular about changing the fundamental principles of the United States from a Constitutional Republic based on limited government through extreme liberty and meritorious equality to a centralized velvet glove Socialist Democracy.

What became the Great Society under LBJ was already a rolling snowball legislatively. Nixon 1960 would have made things worse with his idea of what GOP statist polices could also be added into a bipartisan mix (addressed in previous post). The inexorable march started by ideologues emboldened by FDR's New Deal and its momentum was slowed somewhat by American discontent under LBJ-Nixon-Carter statist economic morass in voting for Ronald Reagan as Executive, and those who voted for disestablishmentarians like Ron Paul into Congress.

Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Post self-deleted by The United States Of Patriots.

The vote: https://i.imgur.com/WdIeKEt.jpg

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

I'm not usually one to stir up controversy in region politics, hell I rarely participate in them at all, but I can't help but think that this "runoff" election between establishing a new Republic and Weed is purposefully designed to ignore a substantial part of the Libertatem population that actually wants a new government because a lot of us can't resist picking a meme answer.

No disrespect intended.

Pevvania, The New United States, Humpheria, The United States Of Patriots

Post self-deleted by Pevvania.

The only significant policy failures of the Trump presidency (Obamacare repeal, lack of wall funding to date, enormous spending hikes) can largely be traced to Trump trusting RINOs in Congress against his better instincts. He trusted Ryan and McConnell to push through Obamacare repeal based on their years of advocacy, and they failed him disastrously after trying to get a bill through Congress that was almost universally unpopular and hastily put together. Trump had repeatedly wanted wall funding in the budget and had considered shutting down the government over the issue, only to be talked down by the establishmentarians with little to no interest in securing the border. Trump and Mick Mulvaney's initial budget proposals would have cut welfare spending, but once again the so-called deficit hawks in the GOP were uninterested. Trump has veto power and definitely deserves blame, particularly for spending, but remember that the swamp is still in control of both parties on Capitol Hill.

If Trump is unable to secure wall funding, then I don't see much of a path to re-election. It'll be a 'no new taxes' moment and totally humiliate him. Unfortunately it seems that this shutdown is a battle between the bases of both parties, both of whom seem totally unwilling to compromise. The only other shot I see at getting the wall in his first term is if the Supreme Court let's Trump end DACA, which as we saw earlier this year was actually able to get far-left Democrats to support wall funding.

The New United States

Regarding the current poll, as I've said before we need a working government, preferably in limited form and emulating the original Libertatem model of 2012-13. Appointed Board and a president elected to unfixed terms. I say this as this region's second- or third-longest resident and the one that virtually came up with the system of government we used from 2013 to 2017/18.

The New United States

Skaveria wrote:I'm not usually one to stir up controversy in region politics, hell I rarely participate in them at all, but I can't help but think that this "runoff" election between establishing a new Republic and Weed is purposefully designed to ignore a substantial part of the Libertatem population that actually wants a new government because a lot of us can't resist picking a meme answer.

No disrespect intended.

I mean, if you're willing to pick "Weed" over a regional govt, how bad do you really want one?

Jadentopian Order wrote:I mean, if you're willing to pick "Weed" over a regional govt, how bad do you really want one?

Lol right, I just have the feeling that if the poll had been "yes vs no" instead of "yes vs weed" the results would've been definitively yes. I agree with Pev that we need a small regional government. I really don't understand the opposition to it. The only reason I've heard is "Why bother? NS is dying anyways."

Pevvania, The New United States

Skaveria wrote:Lol right, I just have the feeling that if the poll had been "yes vs no" instead of "yes vs weed" the results would've been definitively yes.

I mean, considering "Weed" is obviously the meme option, there ain't anything stopping anyone from just ignoring all votes for weed.

Hell, even if it were yes v. no and no won, ain't nothing really stopping anyone from making a government anyways.

The New United States, Rateria

I say we just do this the old fashion way. Start from scratch. Somebody make a proposal and all of the citizens can ratify a new government or not. If a majority of votes ratifies a new government, it is the legitimate government of Libertatem.

I agree that a system reminiscent of pre-Republic Libertatem is best for our size and activity level and hopefully we can grow from there. That’s how we always have done it.

Miencraft, Rotgeheim, Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Skaveria

Humpheria wrote:I agree that a system reminiscent of pre-Republic Libertatem is best for our size and activity level and hopefully we can grow from there. That’s how we always have done it.

Whatever happened to all the Factbooks and posts on that age of Libertatem? I went scouring for it the other day, like the post on the original Constitution, and I couldn't find squat.

Rotgeheim wrote:Whatever happened to all the Factbooks and posts on that age of Libertatem? I went scouring for it the other day, like the post on the original Constitution, and I couldn't find squat.

I keep letting the nation die, I'll go revive it and bring it back here.

Rotgeheim wrote:Whatever happened to all the Factbooks and posts on that age of Libertatem? I went scouring for it the other day, like the post on the original Constitution, and I couldn't find squat.

Here you go. This nation's factbooks would have everything.

Rateria

Rotgeheim wrote:Whatever happened to all the Factbooks and posts on that age of Libertatem? I went scouring for it the other day, like the post on the original Constitution, and I couldn't find squat.

You remember the Board days Rot. Those were the days

Rotgeheim, Pevvania, Rateria

Humpheria wrote:You remember the Board days Rot. Those were the days

Yeah they were! Hard to believe those days were, like, four years ago lol

Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria

Humpheria wrote:You remember the Board days Rot. Those were the days

I remember the day when I was the Board Chairman then CTEd and then when I came back some weirdo named Pevvania had shown up and broken the entire darn system and replaced it with some weird thing where there's a President.

Pevvania, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

Elected executive, three person appointed legislative cabinet, one judicial officer. Small government.

Pevvania, Rateria, Skaveria

Pevvania wrote:...Trump trusting RINOs in Congress...

...the bases of both parties, both of whom seem totally unwilling to compromise....

Trusting RINOs is what foiled Goldwater's potential presidency, killed the Reagan Revolution dead in its tracks before Reagan even left office (baited and switched by the Compassionate faux-Conservatism and the Contract On America), hijacked the TEA-Party (original 5 points: simplify the tax code to a low flat percent; abolish the IRS; audit to abolish the fed and throw the banksters in jail (return to honest banking and sound currency); recriminalize graft and corruption (euphemized as lobbying, etc; and term limits for not only elected officials but for bureaucrats and civil servants also--make them prove every 5 years why they should be re-hired); and betrayed Ron Paul's campaign at the management level, and (as be they Never-Trumpers) a real and present danger to Trump's Presidential viability.

The Democrat Party has thoroughly rejected all things Trump-touched (even leftist things Trump supports such as wanting to stabilize (which cannot be done) and expand medicaide and medicare to nearly everyone; and the RINO GOP does not want to loose its Establishment Political Economy between the Military Industrial Complex, Homeland Security Apparrati; and interlocking political corporate machines that keep the old families powerbase afloat in the 21st century by swaying foreign and domestic policy behind the scenes (all of which Trump is bitterly inimical towards). Both have valid and existential reasons to not give Trump an inch as he would embrace, smother, and consume them to fulfill his agenda.

Can there be a compromise between the Fabianist Socialism espoused by the Democrat Party Establishment and the Corporatistic Socialism espoused by the Grand Old Party Establishment both of which are naked Statism on the one hand, and the maximized self-government and barest of limited governments as espoused by our Founding Fathers on the other? In one the State is an insufferable god, and people are cogs of the priestly machine for whatever ambiguous and arbitrary notion of the good is deemed at the moment); in the other the Law (capital L) is sovereign, and the state administers only the truth, adjudicates only justice, and practices/proclaims only Liberty as public servants to a Free (including socially and economically) and Self-Governing People. For the two parties there is the 10 Planks of Marxism in common, but for Traditional Americans, I see no middle ground in which to compromise.

To everyone on the Gregorian Calendar: Have a happy New Year! To those on other calendars: Have a happy New Year!

Rateria

I have a government proposal:

Wilhelm is Lord Theocrat for Life, and all you plebs just mind your own business.

Also, happy 2019

Rateria

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