Libertarian RMB

WA Delegate (non-executive): The Republic of HUFS (elected 56 days ago)

Founder: The Commonwealth of Whipjangle

World Factbook Entry

Visit a region where you can gain the benefit of a small group of like minded players, but with no other restrictions, where your rights end at the tip of the other guy's nose and where smaller government is better government, and no government (aside from national defense and regional dispute resolution) is best of all.

Tags: Featured and Medium.

Regional Power: Moderate

Libertarian contains 33 nations, the 332nd most in the world.


Today's World Census Report

The Most Authoritarian in libertarian

World Census staff loitered innocuously in various public areas and recorded the length of time that passed before they were approached by dark-suited officials.

As a region, libertarian is ranked 16,642nd in the world for Most Authoritarian.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
Page:  «  1  2  3  4  »

Regional Happenings


Libertarian Regional Message Board

I was at my state convention and alot of it seemed just like our debates/arguments.

The decline of the British armed forces had very little to do with the "loss of Empire".

For example the key attacks on the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force in the late 1960s were nothing to do with the loss of Empire.

Read (for example) Eric "Winkle" Brown (the famous pilot - and in the team that liberated the Belson Extermination Camp) on this (I met him a few weeks ago - an astonishing man for his age, or any age).

And what of the decline of armed forces of Australia, Canada and New Zealand (and on and on)?

This is parasitism - and leaving everything to the Americans WILL NOT WORK (not in the long term).

Turning from mistakes to stupid lies.

Far from being "suicidal" to attack the military in the United States - it has, in fact, been the road to academic and media success (for 50 years).

Even OTC groups were kicked out of "elite" universities - but far left groups were just fine (after all many of the modern academics and teachers are Frankfurt School "Critical Theory" Marxists).

It is not an honest mistake to pretend that the "warfare state" can not be opposed in the United States (that it is "suicidal" to do so) - it is a LIE and someone who comes out with this line is a LIAR.

As for the wars of Mr Bush - they were based on the "good people" fallacy.

"The good people of Afghanistan are being oppressed by the Islamists - we must liberate them".

"The good people of Iraq are being oppressed by Saddam - we must liberate them" (that had been policy since the Clinton Administration - passed by Congress and signed by the President).

Sadly the opposition to the wars also shared the "good people fallacy" - the lovely people of Iraq killed by the "Imperialist" American military (X hundred thousand "dying from sanctions" under Clinton and they dying again from the "Imperialism" of Bush).

Anyone with any practical knowledge of the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq and who tried to explain what they are really like.........

Well they were denounced as "racists" by BOTH sides.

By the "neo cons" and by the "anti war" crowd.

I opposed the Iraq war - but (if anything) the "anti war" crowd were even more deluded and wrong headed than the neo cons.

Coming out with nonsense about "American Imperialism" and "American Militarism" may get someone a nice job in a university, but it remains nonsense.

The Islamist populations are not nice - they are oppressors (far more than the oppressed) and they remain not nice (free migration people please note) when the immigrate to the United States or Europe.

Of course they (or their children) could be converted (if not to Christianity then to some other belief system such as Randian Objectivism) , but that violates the sacred doctrines of the Frankfurt School Critical Theory types.

On the contrary (so the media and academia tell us) Islam should be "celebrated" in the West - in Europe, in Australia, in North America. To the truth (as Gladstone and Winston Churchill did) is "Islamophobia".

In fact it is "suicidal" to tell the truth about Mohammed - and the fact that his followers are taught to follow his example.

One will not get any nice teaching jobs that way.

I was also opposed to MIddle East involvement, due primarily to the regions history. However, when the decision was made, we (the US) was obligated to actually do something, unlike Viet Nam. The scenes in Iraq are eerily remniscent of the fall of Saigon - I'm just waiting for the copters to pull the last remnants of the American presence off the embassy roof and the slaughter of the innocents to begin (no re-education camps here).

But this is what you get with an Administration that does not understand (or rejects) geo-politics and the role of the military and has no idea on how military forc should be used. The fall of Saigon took place under a weak President (Ford) with an overacting Congress that was definitely anti-military, as pesonified by the late Senator Frank Church and the other usual suspects (Teddy, et. al). We now have a relatively ineffective Congress with a weak teflon President (militarily at least)

The cut off of air support and supplies in Indochina led to millions of civilians being murdered in Laos, South Vietnam and Cambodia (Cambodia was the worst of all - where pro Mao, rather than pro Soviet, Communists came to power). What happened in 1975 (and after) was a terrible crime (a betrayal) and the "anti war" crowd have the blood of millions of innocent civilians (people the United States had sworn to defend) on their hands. This is the exact opposite of what the education-system and the media teach.

However, and with the greatest respect, I think the situation in Iraq (and the rest of the Islamic world) is FUNDEMENTALLY different.

As I (and others) tried to explain some years ago (and got "racist" screamed at us for our pains) the population of somewhere like Iraq are NOT (unlike, say, most people in Vietnam) essentially apolitical - on the contrary, they (the people of somewhere like Iraq) have a political ideology - ISLAM. Islam is a philosophy that covers every aspect of life and death - to treat it the flippant way that modern "educated" Westerners treat religion is a terrible mistake. And nor can Mohammed be treated as if he was Jesus of Buddha.

Mohammed was a politician and soldier of genius (his ruthlessness was like a well balanced sword), he was nothing like Jesus or Buddha (or anyone else a university type would think of a "religious figure"). And the "peace" he offered was the peace of SUBMISSION. But also a quiet conscience - people are tormented in war (the faces of the those they kill torment them - years afterwards), Islam offers a release (no more regrets - no more waking up in a cold sweat) as ANYTHING one does for Allah is morally justified BY DEFINITON.

As for his followers in Iraq........

They are indeed divided (Sunni, Shia) but they are no vast numbers of apolitical "innocent people" (one does find many innocent types in the Middle East).

Even the Kurds are not apolitical types - although (thankfully) their Kurdish nationalism trumps their Islam.

Going into Iraq looking for innocents is an error - remember the same people who are slaughtered by one side, would happily be the slaughterers if things went their way. They crave the skulls of their enemies far more than they want the schools-and-hospitals that well meaning Western aid offers. And it is not "ignorance" or "stupidity" - many of those involved in the worst deeds are highly intelligent and with a good technical education (they know all about modern technology).

The same is true in Syria (where Sunni and Shia are also in a death match).

American diplomats (and others) always come to the Middle East with the same misconceptions.

"Most people just want to get a long - if only it was not for a few extremists....".

Sadly just not true.

Peace in the Middle East is not an option - it is just unachievable.

Which is why sending Americans (or others) in is wrong.

Sending people to their deaths on an IMPOSSIBLE mission is not acceptable.

The only chance for stable Iraq would be bringing back Hashemite dynasty - the relatives of Jordan King.
That is because in arab/muslim culture, a tribal/dynastic system with a King figure (not neccessarily outright monarchy, but also a regime like Syrian Assads) backed by his entire extended family, a "clan", is only viable alternative to outright theocracy like the one in Iran, or old Taliban Afghanistan.
But American leadership fails to realise, that western style democracy is just not possible there. You can have secular tribalism (Jordan, Syria, Saddams Iraq), theocratic republic (iran), or theocratic tribalism (Saudis), but not a secular republic.

"As a region, libertarian is ranked 2,978th in the world for Most Politically Free."

Just looked at a couple of pages of the Regions listed as "Most Politically Free" and all have just one or two NationStates within them. Kind of skews things...

Snifkowoland - yes the old Kings (and tribal elders) are the least bad option in these countries.

The world contains 113,911 nations in 17,619 regions. As a region, libertarian is ranked 17,515th in the world for Highest Average Tax Rates. (bottom 0.6%, only 104 regions scored lower)
Out of 35 nations, 30 are in the bottom 50%, 27 are in the bottom 10%, 25 are in the bottom 5%, and 12 are in the bottom 1%. Well done!

So really big news on gun rights.

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics