Laissez Faireholm RMB

WA Delegate: The Motors of Lincoln Sydney (elected 1 year 120 days ago)

Founder: The Federated Realms of Distruzio

BoardActivity History Admin

World Factbook Entry

Welcome! This is a region conceived for the libertarian minded - the belief that liberty is the primary virtue of humanity and that the State should be minimized to the greatest possible extent.

Anyone who believes in individual free will is welcome. Here you'll find the cure for stateholm syndrome.

Please endorse our regional WA Delegate, The Motors of Lincoln Sydney

Liberty is not a means to a political end. It is itself the highest political end.
- Lord Acton

The ideal Government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone one which barely escapes being no government at all.
- H.L. Mencken

LinkClick here to go to our offsite forums

Embassies: Libertatem, Black Mesa Islands, Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region, Eastern Roman Empire, Hellenic Civilization, Snopesean Archipelago, Weed, Eutopia, One big Island, The National Alliance, Maltropian Puppet Confederacy, Persian Tricycle Riders, Capitalist Paradise, Cashnatchee, World Alliance, The Alliance Pocket Universe, and 60 others.New Republica, New Europe, Zarathustra, North Africa, International Republican Union, The Commonwealth Of Furry Peoples, The True Rebirth, United Empire of Islam, League of Christian Nations, NationStates Sesquipedalian Countries, Confederation of Nations, Strategos Prime, Zentari, League of Cobalt Nations, Arctic, The Western Empire, Gay, Isles of Socialism, The Illuminati, Ivory Tower, Libertarians, Antista, The Hyatt Islands, Land of Absolute Freedom, Northern Emirates, The Seventh Bay, The Versutian Federation, Fusionism, Austritaria, Paraguay, International Commonwealth Of Nations, The Liberty Sector, Transhuman Singularity Research Alliance, Oceanside, Glenda Dawson HighSchool, Deutschland, Ankh Mauta, Anarcho Pragmatism, Louisiana Alliance x Alliance Louisiane, The Christian Nations, The Evil Genius Archipelago, The Intergalactic Corporate Paradise, Anarchy, The Atlas Union, European Region, League of Nations, Classical Liberal Union, New Vatican, The Atheist Empire, Continent of Xenonia, New Roman Republic, Dudeism, libertarian, Union of Libertarian States, The International Commerce Guild, Avadam Inn, Federation of Free States, The Waters of Lethe, The Customs Court of Elderly Peoples, and Republic of Alberta.

Tags: Anti-Fascist, National Sovereigntist, Offsite Forums, General Assembly, Anarchist, Industrial, Monarchist, Independent, Featured, Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, and 12 others.Regional Government, Democratic, Capitalist, Social, Generalite, Large, Free Trade, Isolationist, Role Player, Anti-Communist, Serious, and World Assembly.

Regional Power: Moderate

Laissez Faireholm contains 55 nations, the 217th most in the world.

Today's World Census Report

The Most Devout in Laissez Faireholm

World Census experts polled citizens from nations worldwide to determine which seemed to be the most religious.

As a region, Laissez Faireholm is ranked 18,329th in the world for Most Devout.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The United Socialist States of MarlencomPsychotic Dictatorship“Munire viam ad Communismum”
2.The Old Good Beduins of Free SaharaCorporate Police State“With freedom comes responsibility”
3.The Republic of WeslostanPsychotic Dictatorship“Weslo”
4.The Kingdom of Omnipotens-ScientiaLeft-Leaning College State“For knowledge brings us forward”
5.The Republic of LeyonhjelmCapitalizt“Can't overwhelm the Leyonhjelm”
6.The Armed Republic of QuayleNew York Times Democracy“The Free State.”
7.The Kingdom of ClaridayNew York Times Democracy“Gnothi Seauton”
8.The Sultanate of Bunga BungaCompulsory Consumerist State“Edamus, Bibamus, Gaudeamus!”
9.The Republic of AtlanticatiaWA MemberLeft-wing Utopia“Solidarity among individuals”
10.The Kingdom of SzekelyfoldAnarchy“Forever blessed and beautiful”
Page:  «  1  2  3  4  5  6  »

Regional Happenings

More...

Laissez Faireholm Regional Message Board

The Republic of Atlanticatia wrote:The statistics I gave from the OECD are standardised relative poverty rates - 50% of the median equivalised disposable income.

Whatever.

The Republic of Atlanticatia wrote:
It is a reduction in poverty. If someone's disposable income is above the poverty line, then guess what - they aren't in poverty. If the poverty line is $12,000 and someone is unemployed but receives $15,000 in unemployment benefits, then they are not in poverty. Why do you think it only has to include earned market incomes? Incomes can come in various forms - transfer payments, market incomes, etc.

It's a temporary relief. It does not solve the problem. Only a symptom. You are not curing the problem. Only treating it. As shown to you by everyone else on the RMB and the statistics we have shown.

The Republic of Atlanticatia wrote:
If we went by your idea that someone is only out of poverty if they earn a market income, then I guess all homemakers would be in poverty. If a married mother is unemployed, you know - being lazy, sitting around on the couch all day with her five kids.. getting housing, food, and spending money from her husband's $100,000 salary, then she's obviously in poverty, right? Because she didn't earn her own market income... I mean, definitely, that's the definition of poverty!

Oh is that what we're doing now? Why don't you move to North Korea then? Clearly you want more state.

At no fvcking point did I say anything about homemakers. Get your sh!t together.

The Republic of Atlanticatia wrote:
Whether someone receives income from child support, their spouse, government transfer payments - perhaps, a negative income tax, or from working at a job, it's all income that can increase someone's disposable income and put them above the poverty line.

Welfare is not a cure. It is treatment. This is basic. And it only encourages for people not to seek the cure.

When I was in property management, we had one property in the portfolio that had generations of families living at the expense of the taxpayers. None of them work. This is not ok. These are able-bodied men and women. At times, the labor market is tough, and jobs are hard or even impossible to find. At no point in history has that lasted for generations.

The Confederacy of Minarchist States wrote:Chicago sees a drop in crime after concealed carry laws were reintroduced:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/?page=all

As to be expected.

The Voluntary Society of Sibirsky wrote:Whatever.
It's a temporary relief. It does not solve the problem. Only a symptom. You are not curing the problem. Only treating it. As shown to you by everyone else on the RMB and the statistics we have shown.

I don't see it that way - if you're above the poverty line, it doesn't matter how you got there. The majority of poor people are not able to work, so how do you suggest they escape poverty otherwise?
[quote]Oh is that what we're doing now? Why don't you move to North Korea then? Clearly you want more state.[/quote]Mmm, so you can't think of a proper response so you use hyperbole and compare the welfare state to North Korea. Totally makes sense.

[quote]At no fvcking point did I say anything about homemakers. Get your sh!t together.
Welfare is not a cure. It is treatment. This is basic. And it only encourages for people not to seek the cure.

When I was in property management, we had one property in the portfolio that had generations of families living at the expense of the taxpayers. None of them work. This is not ok. These are able-bodied men and women. At times, the labor market is tough, and jobs are hard or even impossible to find. At no point in history has that lasted for generations. [/quote]
I was just showing how illogical your argument is - why are transfer payments valid as 'curing' poverty when they come from a family member, but not from the state?

And yes, there will occasionally be people who abuse the system but it's rare. The vast majority of people end their benefit claim within a timely manner.

However it is important to know who the poor actually are: http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/imce/poor1987.png http://www.demos.org/blog/4/30/15/who-are-officially-poor-1987-2013

The largest portion is children, followed by the elderly, disabled, students, those in-work, the unemployed, carers, and the 'rest'.

So about 92% of people below the poverty line are children, elderly, disabled, students, in work, or caring for someone. (for example, caring for a disabled person full-time).

All of these people are either working or unable to work. I'm not sure how you go about 'curing' the problem of poverty among the elderly or disabled or in-work people - do you force an 80 year old to get a job, or force someone with disabilities into the labor market? If someone's working, do you tell them to just work harder? No - these are an example of a market failure to provide adequate incomes for those who cannot work, or who work but do not earn enough. Increasing welfare spending would surely cure the problem of poverty.

Post self-deleted by The Merchant Republics.

Excellent job on the quotes The Republic of Atlanticatia. Even better than your argument.

The Republic of Atlanticatia wrote:I don't see it that way - if you're above the poverty line, it doesn't matter how you got there. The majority of poor people are not able to work, so how do you suggest they escape poverty otherwise?

Of course it matters how you get there. We want productive members of society to contribute.

The Republic of Atlanticatia wrote:Mmm, so you can't think of a proper response so you use hyperbole and compare the welfare state to North Korea. Totally makes sense.

It makes far more sense than you implying that I am arguing a housewife living in a household with $100,000 in annual income is in poverty. That was the proper response.

The Republic of Atlanticatia wrote:I was just showing how illogical your argument is - why are transfer payments valid as 'curing' poverty when they come from a family member, but not from the state?

My argument is consitent and logical. Yours isn't.

Families gather resources by providing valuable services to their employers, communities, society, the world.

States? States get their resources through death threats and extortion.

The Republic of Atlanticatia wrote:And yes, there will occasionally be people who abuse the system but it's rare. The vast majority of people end their benefit claim within a timely manner.

It is not rare. It is common and you want to exacerbate the problem.

The Republic of Atlanticatia wrote:All of these people are either working or unable to work. I'm not sure how you go about 'curing' the problem of poverty among the elderly or disabled or in-work people - do you force an 80 year old to get a job, or force someone with disabilities into the labor market? If someone's working, do you tell them to just work harder?

I beg your pardon?

THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS SUGGESTED THE USE OF FORCE IS YOU!

The Republic of Atlanticatia wrote:These are an example of a market failure to provide adequate incomes for those who cannot work, or who work but do not earn enough. Increasing welfare spending would surely cure the problem of poverty.

These are not market failures. These are government failures, as has already been shown to you with data. Poverty was declining before welfare. It is no longer declining. We have addressed the majority of the issues, but I would like to touch on the disabled in a bit more detail.

I'm sure you are a staunch supporter of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Between 1991 and 1995, in an expanding economy, this idiocy of a law decreased employment for the disabled by 7.8%. By 2001, the sharp drops in employment continued.

These days, with the internet, telecommuting, teleconferencing, and so on, the employment rate for the disabled should be much higher, not lower, as they can perform many tasks from home, while they could not before.

As usual, all of your statist solutions, make the matters worse.

The Voluntary Society of Sibirsky wrote:Excellent job on the quotes The Republic of Atlanticatia. Even better than your argument.

Of course it matters how you get there. We want productive members of society to contribute.

It makes far more sense than you implying that I am arguing a housewife living in a household with $100,000 in annual income is in poverty. That was the proper response.

My argument is consitent and logical. Yours isn't.

Families gather resources by providing valuable services to their employers, communities, society, the world.

States? States get their resources through death threats and extortion.

It is not rare. It is common and you want to exacerbate the problem.

I beg your pardon?

THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS SUGGESTED THE USE OF FORCE IS YOU!

These are not market failures. These are government failures, as has already been shown to you with data. Poverty was declining before welfare. It is no longer declining. We have addressed the majority of the issues, but I would like to touch on the disabled in a bit more detail.

I'm sure you are a staunch supporter of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Between 1991 and 1995, in an expanding economy, this idiocy of a law decreased employment for the disabled by 7.8%. By 2001, the sharp drops in employment continued.

These days, with the internet, telecommuting, teleconferencing, and so on, the employment rate for the disabled should be much higher, not lower, as they can perform many tasks from home, while they could not before.

As usual, all of your statist solutions, make the matters worse.


Rekt

"... [The] parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die."

--Murray Rothbard

Isn't this a great idea? The Non-aggression Principle demands it and I'm sure all libertarians here agree with it. It's perfectly logical.

The Oppressed Peoples of Anarchocrapia wrote:"... [The] parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die."

--Murray Rothbard

Isn't this a great idea? The Non-aggression Principle demands it and I'm sure all libertarians here agree with it. It's perfectly logical.

No.

The Oppressed Peoples of Anarchocrapia wrote:"... [The] parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die."

--Murray Rothbard

Isn't this a great idea? The Non-aggression Principle demands it and I'm sure all libertarians here agree with it. It's perfectly logical.

No, because the principles of Libertarianism apply to adults. By bringing a child into the world, parents have a responsibility to it until adulthood, however that may be defined. Once adulthood is reached, however, the parents then have no further legal responsibilities to the child and your concept applies.

The Confederacy of Elwher wrote:No, because the principles of Libertarianism apply to adults. By bringing a child into the world, parents have a responsibility to it until adulthood, however that may be defined. Once adulthood is reached, however, the parents then have no further legal responsibilities to the child and your concept applies.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120965/rand-paul-libertarians-have-long-had-horrifying-view-parenting

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics