Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

What is all this J. Edgar Hoover style Conspiracy None sense.

Utopian States, that Franklin quote is, quite honestly, bullshit. Almost every law made is designed to keep the people safe, mainly from themselves, and curbs personal liberty. You do not have the liberty to not wear a seat belt. Children do not have the liberty of getting intoxicated. You do not have the liberty of driving while intoxicated. Only an idiot would sacrifice safety for liberty. Personally, I enjoy having peace of mind, knowing some lunatic is probably not going to come into my house and murder my family, and knowing that someone is not going to shoot me in broad daylight because the police would come for him.

The only reason one would have for opposing such measures as the PATRIOT Act is that they themselves have something to hide, and are, indeed, not patriots. Can one not sacrifice some privacy for the good of their nation? If you have done nothing wrong, what is there to hide?

That is the timeless argument of the statist, the fascist, the socialist, and the communist. Liberty is the highest ideal. It is the end unto itself. Perhaps laws protect us, but liberty can give us the freedom to protect ourselves. For example, the Second Amendment gives us the right to defend ourselves (liberty). Laws prevent us from doing so in many cases (curbing liberty) and thus make us less secure. It is not in all cases laws should not be created, it is this Nanny State we have created for ourselves. The thousands of regulations that invade the personal privacy of American citizens. And privacy is indeed a right.

The problem is the government decides what's right. The government is not usually (in fact, it is often not) right. The Patriot Act was the first step to a totalitarian state in the USA. Now we have the atrocity NDAA to go with it. The government, in a process of "keeping us safe" has now seized our basic rights as prescribed in the Bill of Rights.

On a personal note, I would rather die free, than live a slave. And these pieces of legislation are the implementation of hard core statism in America. I don't want Big Brother watching me. Big Brother doesn't know what's best for me. It goes without saying that free people can do a better job at solving problems than government can. Personal security? Don't count on the cops; they'll arrive before it's too late. All you have is yourself and your own protection.

The only job of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Any law may be made (with caution and shrewdness) if it falls under the category of protecting the life, liberty, and property of citizens. Often times, laws are made to protect life while trampling liberty and/or property (this is often the case). The Patriot Act, I believe, can be considered a legitimate temporary piece of legislation in war time to discover the misgivings of terrorists. However, as the government often does, they went too far with passing the National Defense Authorization Act. We have essential rights (to trial, jury, etc.) that should never under any circumstances be infringed. Give me liberty or give me death!

Also "for the good of the nation" is a fascist idea. There is no higher goal, among men that is, than the power of the individual. The individual is great and the nation comes second. I love my country, it's the government I'm afraid of. The government which makes new and ever more far-reaching regulations/rules/laws that invade every facit of business and indeed our personal lives. These are unneccessary and a burden to a free people as the citizens of the United States of America.

You remind me a lot of George Orwell's 1984. Contrary to what you might believe, giving the government more power to look into what you do with your life is not good. Often we don't even do things that are wrong. Why do we need a "Big Brother"? The answer is we don't. We need less intelligence in order to maximize individual liberty from the state. These are our (if you're a US citizen) constitutional rights, not to be suspended, tampered with, or trampled on by the corrupt, authoritarian State.

I would rather live in a Fascist state than an anarchic wasteland. Also, why would a Communist argue in favour of a powerful government? Communism requires a stateless, moneyless, divisionless society. A Communist is an anarchist, and I do not see many anarchists arguing in favour of furthering governmental powers.

Then you may kill yourself. I would rather have safety than liberty, as would most of the world. Liberty is not an ideal, it as something that is nice until it gets out of hand, as it often does. The people need regulations, they need, crave order and discipline. Without this is chaos.

We don't need "freedom from the state." The state is what gives us freedom. You pretend to appear the state, yet proclaim to love the "rights" and freedoms that very state allows you to have. You are not entitled to anything. Anything you have, the state allows you to have. I enjoy individual liberty, until it conflicts with other's safety and well-being. Once I become destructive to others, the state needs to eliminate me, and rightly so. "Rulers do not bear the sword for no reason." My highest ideal is to serve my nation, and beyond that, no person has purpose - but to serve God and country.

I support gun rights. I enjoy owning guns. I do not want the government to take them away - I like to be able to defend myself. However, if the government says that I am no longer allowed to have them, guess what? I will hand them over. It is my duty. You seem to argue in favour of virtual anarchy - if there are no rulers, then one may defend himself as he sees fit, and others will do the same. That sounds like hell to me. I don't want to be so preoccupied with protecting myself that I cannot focus on any other pursuits.

Privacy is not a right. It is not even that important. It isn't like the government is going to go around telling people that you looked up porn on the Internet - they want to make sure you aren't a threat to your fellow citizens. They are protecting other's "right to life" by denying you your ridiculous "right to privacy."

Enough! This bickering is pointless.

I assure you all that we need no secret police or peacetime military intelligence. Just because we are anti-Communist does not mean we have cause for a Red Scare. Just because we do not agree on the trade-off between safety and liberty does not mean we have cause to insult each other.

If you want to have a debate with someone over big vs. small government, do it in the telegrams. We can't keep doing this here; it makes us look divided.

Rights do not come from the state, they are inalienable. Rights are not changeable. I really have nothing more to say than what I've already written above. Totalitarianism is wrong, it has led to the deaths of millions of people. I do not favor anarchy, I favor a government that is extremely small and non-coercive.

Also, Conservative Idealism, I will do what I please on this RMB. I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Manager!

The right to privacy is not ridiculous. It is the cornerstone of a society that resists an authoritarian government. We may live with discomfort, crime, and insecurity, but most of these are nothing we can't remedy with our own rights. Also for example, you mentioned laws against drunk driving. I believe the existing rights are sufficient for this because drivers would be deterred by state action of rights violation (on the part of the victim) just as much as a violation of some new, possibly misguided regulation. I agree that serving God and country is important, but I would only stand with my country if it remained the last great bastion of freedom on earth (to paraphrase President Reagan). I love and fear God. I would even sacrifice my greatest prize, joy, and treasure (liberty) for the Lord. Please don't believe that I wouldn't.

Telegrams from now on, Steinbach.

Prussia-Steinbachs Political Views, I defy your words. I agree wholeheartedly with Liberosia on this, especially "That is the timeless argument of the statist, the fascist, the socialist, and the communist."

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

If you must debate, you must, but please cease the personal attacks forthwith.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

So Snabagag, have you been following the US election?

Yes, I have. I'm very interested in the US elections. I hope for Romney to win, mainly because he hasn't yet gone against the constitution and he isn't a war criminal, yet. I also think his ways of governing could differ somewhat from those of Obama's.

Everyone always talks about the merits of Obama or Romney, but are you familiar with the electoral college system?

Yes, in fact I am! A representative from the US Embassy came to my school on friday and held a speech on the elections in the US, including how they work. It's a very interesting system.

So are you familiar with the "swing states" in our country right now?

Yes, it will be very exciting to see how the elections in those states go.

The possible swing states this year are Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and New Hampshire. Romney has slight edges in Colorado, Florida, Virginia, Iowa, and New Hampshire right now. Obama has a slight edge in Nevada. Ohio and Wisconsin are dead even.

The problem is, Obama has over 230 electoral votes locked in solidly and Romney has only 206 solidly. Romney needs to win almost all of the swing states in order to win.

It's interesting that Romney's solid states cover much more land area than Obama's solid states. Obama just has the big dogs on his side.

Yes, we Republicans are usually the rural folk in the election cycle. You'll notice that the South is almost all red this year. It used to be all blue because the Democrats and the Republicans switched political base a few decades ago. That region is called 'The Solid South'...except now, it's red.

Interesting. I'm seriously considering calling in sick to school on wednesday so I can stay up watching the coverage.

Yes...you gotta watch it on Fox news.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

I've decided to apply to the World Assembly after all.

Sure, it might make my nation look a little bit different, but I think I'm prepared to enter the NationStates-wide political arena.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

I can try to outweigh the WA mandates with particularly conservative local legislation. If it doesn't work, I'll resign.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

I'll quit if it gets out of hand.

Does this mean Romney wins? The Redskins just lost at home 21 to 13 to the Panthers before the election and according to the Redskins Rule the incumbent loses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Anyone wishing to apply for the last remaining Board position, please telegram me.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Are talking to me?

Well, Tonakistan, statistically speaking...

GO, ROMNEY, GO!

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Oh my gosh...Abatael, do you think your Virginians are going to go Romney on Tuesday?

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

All right, the "oh my gosh" was not meant as a response to anything you have said, just meant to show urgency that we have an election in two days...oh my gosh, two days...

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

What??? We must have Virginia if Romney is to win. (there are a few other possibilities,though)

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Congratulations Board Member Vincitquisevincit. Ave Libertatem!

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Dangit...I thought I remembered reading that somewhere in a book I read...

Wait, no! It means "hail", I looked it up on google translate.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Obama will take Virginia, Liberosia. Abatael is correct.

I insist on optimism. Rassmussen Reports polls Romney ahead of Obama by two points.

Two corrections: 1) it's actually spelt Rasmussen and 2) Romney's ahead by three points!

Abatael: I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way about Vanilla Coke!

1. Vanilla Coke is disgusting.

2. Why would Romney winning be a good thing, Liberosia? He is nothing close to libertarian, and can't remember his positions on the issues long enough to convince anyone he's even conservative.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Lime Coke was disgusting. Vanilla was weird at first but buy a case and it ill grow on ya lol. Anyone who likes coke and Ice cream will like it.

RoyRodgers are where it's at.

Hi everyone your friendly nation Liberosia invited me here and I decided I would join if it's alright with everyone.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Personally, I like straight, normal Coca-Cola. But I also like Lime Coke. /notkiddingthatshitsawesome

Sure, Mitt "The Flip" Romney is conservative now. Who knows what he'll be by the end of his first term of president, if he even gets one.

Sir, why do you call Mitt "The Flip"? After reading one of his books No Apology, the other being Turnaround, I've found Mitt to be a very moderate conservative. Also after watching the primaries, the debates, and reading his 5-point-plan he has constantly stayed moderate with conservative values too. I probobly don't have any right as the new guy here to start arguining but I will not stand by as people trash my candidate with petty name-calling.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Independent States Of America:

Sir, why do you call Mitt "The Flip"? After reading one of his books No Apology, the other being Turnaround, I've found Mitt to be a very moderate conservative. Also after watching the primaries, the debates, and reading his 5-point-plan he has constantly stayed moderate with conservative values too. I probobly don't have any right as the new guy here to start arguining but I will not stand by as people trash my candidate with petty name-calling.

I very much agree with Independent States Of America.

The RoyRodgers is the traditional name for the Cherry Coke (except it must be with real cherry sauce, not in the can).

And as for Mitt...I like him, he is a very decent Republican (not a libertarian by any means). However, I must invoke the ultimate recitation...anyone who is right of Obama is all right with me!

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

I've had it before, Abatael. It's weird. Also - Viva il Duce!

He even has a book named "Turnaround?" Good Lord. Can it be more obvious?

Also, you call him a moderate. Do I really have to provide you with the numerous sources available of Mitt calling himself "severely conservative?" You just said that he is a liar. Thank you.

Liberosia - plenty of blue-dog Democrats are right of Obama. Would you vote for them? What about men such as Nikolaos Michaloliakos or Nick Griffin? They are both right of Obama.

Well "Turnaround" is about how he turned around a failing winter olympics and made it a succesful one, the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics to be exact.

Seriously its between Mitt and Obama, one or the other no third choice. We have already seen what Obama has done, and we see what he will do. I dislike his liberal policies and his thuggish administration.

Why not take a chance on Mitt? I know he wont be worse than Obama and his liberal, borderline socialist policies and beliefs.

Every time I hear him on the campaign trail talking about his record I feel insulted, he has done nothing but dig us deeper in to this mess.

We need to get him out of office!

I just want to point out it's nice to be part of a region where we can debate eachother respectively.

Also Mexican coke is the best. If ya haven't tried it, try it.

They use real sugar rather than corn syrup they use over here, and they come in glass bottles. Its like the coke of old.

Also, bragging time; I'm a member of the WA, and number five in the region for most armed. 2nd Amendment, heck yeah!

Obama's view on this financial crises was to pay off our debt with another credit card. Like the near trillion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to lower unemployment, which it didn't.

Throwing money at problems then hoping to see it turn a profit down the line is not a strategy. If those policies fail, then the future generations will be saddled with debt which is happening now under Obama.

Well Obama thinks a stimulus is also printing more money and giving it to people, which lowers the value of the dollar. I believe in real stimulus, which is Reagan economics, where we cut taxes across the board, like in Romney's plan, so more people, and the rich, can keep and have more money which they'll invest in the private sector and therefore, stimulating the economy.

Under Obama, unemployment has spiked. The only reason it's gone down is because people have taken themselves off "the list" because they think they have no chance of ever getting a job.

...I don't think we can take another four years.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

I agree and even though I might not be old enough to vote I'm very well educated on the issue to advise people on a better candidate.

Romney may not have been my first choice in the primaries. Or my second choice. Possibly, but only possibly, my third choice.

But, goshdarnit, he has got to win this presidential election.

Really Abatael? I notice a difference, to me it taste a bit sweeter.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

Speaking of the primaries my original candidate was always Newt, probobly because I'm so far right on the political spectrum it isn't funny, and the fact that he really had great ideas to take care of the lower income people, considering his idea where you place students under the best janitors in the schools and pay them for work, and also his plan of following the Chilean model of personal savings accounts to save social security.

We're sitting on a 7.8% unemployment rate. Count the people who aren't unemployed but aren't seeking jobs, and we're sitting on approximately twice that. More, if we count the youth (although that wouldn't be statistically fair).

Post by Abatael suppressed by a moderator.

That unemployment rate actually went back up to 7.9% and I'm not sure how to directly say how conservative I am, it would depend on the issue.

The difference is Keynesian economics versus Supply Side economics. We libertarians adhere to Classical economics (a laissez-faire [almost] economy), but the Classical school of thought was shut down for more than 30 years by FDR and the socialists after him. In the 1970's, Keynesian economics culminated into "stagflation": the mix of high unemployment, stagnation, and inflation all at the same time. Reagan realized that this problem of stagflation was brought on by the Keynesian policies of the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations and he proposed a return to Classical economics via Supply Side theory. The main goal was to murder the inflation rate. After the Fed began their tight money policy in the early 80's, recession hit the economy. Reagan dealt with this with his Supply Side program of reduced tax rates (everyone recieved a cut, but the growth derived from tax cuts for investment and business [i.e. the wealthy entities in America]). Of course, the market responded and in 1983, recovery roared throughout the nation. By 1984 and beyond, we were on the track to the largest peacetime expansion in our history (with growth rates over 8%). Inflation had been beaten down to 4%, taxes had been cut, and the number of federal regulations had been cut in half.

In short, whatever is going on now can be fixed if we apply some good old-fashioned Reaganomics.

That goes to show Ronald Reagan was a pure genius and he was one of my favorite presidents but I have to say my favorite was Richard M. Nixon.

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