10000 IslandsBoard

Is Nazism bad? Yes.
Is using the Security Council as a way of invading bad? Yes.

This leaves us all with a predicament, huh?

I will neither support nor tolerate raiding (even if it's against Nazis) if I can have any say. My vote goes against.

Flag flayers wrote:

It's true, you can't ban thinking, but allowing these people any kind of representation even if it's 'only' 1% is preposterous. Because of 'Right of free speech' nonsense that helps spread hateful ideologies those people are getting away with it, but now we have a chance to strike at them.

You can't ban the right of free speech because of a few hateful speakers. If you suppress this right, eventually you'll get censorship... and then, whatever authority is in control of it, they can just choose who has the right to express themselves or not. Now imagine, that in a society with no Right of Free Speech, somehow a nazi (let's take our example here) gets a important role in this censorship authority. And decides only nazi thinking is allowed to be spoken. Then what do you get ? Nazism, with no one to stand up to them, because they just can't speak their mind.
Banning the free speech is not the solution. Without free speech, society cannot evolve. Just imagine how the world would be today if some people could'nt speak their mind freely (against the main idea of society) : slavery would still be here ; women would still be stuck at home with nothing of their own ; half of the world would still be under authority of western powers ; A LOT of scientific advancement would not have been made (just look at how Galileo ended), etc...
Basically, it would be like living in the middle-ages (in Europe), with the Church in control of everything.

(Yeah, maybe that conclusion a bit extreme...) But anyway, my point is : you can't ban the right of free speech because a few people misuse it.
Because then, you have to decide who can speak and who can't. Could you take the responsibility of being such a moral judge ?

Ether flan wrote:

You can't ban the right of free speech because of a few hateful speakers. If you suppress this right, eventually you'll get censorship... and then, whatever authority is in control of it, they can just choose who has the right to express themselves or not. Now imagine, that in a society with no Right of Free Speech, somehow a nazi (let's take our example here) gets an important role in this censorship authority. And decides only nazi thinking is allowed to be spoken. Then what do you get ? Nazism, with no one to stand up to them, because they just can't speak their mind.
Banning the free speech is not the solution. Without free speech, society cannot evolve. Just imagine how the world would be today if some people couldn't speak their mind freely (against the main idea of society) : slavery would still be here ; women would still be stuck at home with nothing of their own ; half of the world would still be under authority of western powers ; A LOT of scientific advancement would not have been made (just look at how Galileo ended), etc...
Basically, it would be like living in the middle-ages (in Europe), with the Church in control of everything.
(Yeah, maybe that conclusion a bit extreme...) But anyway, my point is : you can't ban the right of free speech because a few people misuse it.
Because then, you have to decide who can speak and who can't. Could you take the responsibility of being such a moral judge ?

You're right, banning free speech is definitely not the solution, this is about the loopholes within the right of it. If people said everything they thought and wanted, terrorist and harmful ideologies would spread like wildfire. I'm proposing that the right of free speech would exist but outside of it, there'd be laws that state that spreading harmful thoughts using it is illegal. People could say anything they want, as long as no one gets hurt. Hurting people verbally, just like hurting them physically, should be a criminal offense.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Perhaps a lesser one.
Yeah, this bill needs to be revised and rewritten badly. Until that happens, I'm changing my vote to 'Against'. I really, really hate Nazism, but this is no the way to combat it, for a second reading this became obvious to me. I mean, seriously, isn't this Security Council powered raiding? We're a DEFENDER region, even if we don't agree with the Nazis, raiding is against our core principles!

What if someone wanted to raid an infamous raiding region to stop them? Would using the Security Council for that be 'evil'? There's no difference between raiders and Nazis. Raiders harm people by destroying communities, Nazis harm people by spreading hate across society. We are a defender region, but we too have helped raids against raiders for the greater good, and this proposal too, stands for the greater good.

Liberationville wrote:

You do realize that Free speech encompasses all speech right? Banning any speech even hate speech is anti-free speech. And you should not fear the spread of harmful ideologies in the "free market of ideas" as they are usually beaten down and ridiculed into obscurity like white supremacy and nazism is in the west. Also, you can't make "hurting" someone verbally a crime for a number of reasons. 1. being that no one got physically hurt 2. The law does not exist to protect your feelings. 3. Free speech is the right to say what you want as long as it is not a "call to action" such as yelling fire in a movie theater(look up the Imminent lawless action Supreme Court ruling for further clarification). The point I'm trying to make here is, If you want to have freedom of speech all people even those you disagree with and have nothing but contempt for must have it as well.

Just hear me out, will ya?

In western culture most people simple ridicule and ignore these types of people, but that doesn't deny these people are dangerous. Should they get in power millions can be killed, is that any good for anyone? People have the right to feel safe, sorry to say that if someone would've said to me that I'm no better than a cockroach and should commit suicide I wouldn't feel safe. The right of free speech should be held freely as long as no other rights are harmed, but due to legal loopholes, usually that's not the case. Yes, no one got physically hurt, but that doesn't mean no one got hurt at all. The law doesn't exist to protect your feelings, it exists to protect YOU. Your feelings are what makes you, you. If everyone felt the same about everything, would people be different? Would there even be any point to expressing any idea? No, and I don't know about you, but that's not a world I'd want to live in. Free speech, beyond of being the right to say what you want, should respect all other rights, and shouldn't be above them like some laws make it be. All rights are equally important to a society, all I'm saying is that laws should make them all equal as well.

BNL Corporation wrote:

Ehhh you could say it's sarcasm, you could say it isn't... it's your opinion :>

C:

*throws hugs at Hakketomat*

I think I owe you a puppet, too. I don't remember the name we chose, though.

The Great Squeaks address on the death of Princess Munchkin
Good afternoon citizens of Catacopia and members of 1000 Islands. As you all know by now on Friday my younger sister and my successor to the throne Princess Munckin became one with the gods. This has been a rough two years with the passing of my brother Lord Loki who would have second in line to the throne over a year ago. And in those times we have seen nothing but support. From fellow Catacopians to members of the 1000 Islands. And to you all I thank you, you have been nothing but support for me the past six years I have ruled the Kingdom.

When I succeeded the throne back in 2011, it was a rough time. For fifteen years we had been under the guide of the Great Wah Charlie Langon, who was not just my older brother, but a teacher and mentor to all of us. He was this fiery individual who as he grew older gained more knowledge. We all remember that photo from his Coronation with the tiny chair on his head. Even in death he was amazing. The same could be said for my sister. She was like a mother to many Catacopians. Her efforts for charity all over the globe impacted so many lives, and she did it not for herself, but for others. When I got ill a year ago and had to take a break from leadership and it looked like she was going to succeed me, she still guided with grace and wisdom. If it had worked out and she got the throne, than I would be at peace knowing the country I love so much was in good hands.

As custom, when a successor dies the next behind them advances up to that spot. So based on that, Lord Aiden Langdon-Nicholes, of Highfell Castle, is now my second in line. However according to that tradition, the second in line moves to the palace where I am speaking to you right now. While I am all for tradition, it just wouldn't be practical as Lord Aiden has requested to continue to stay with his brothers and sisters in the castle. I can not argue with that. Family is everything. And in this time of sorrow, we are all family. Cat or Human, Bear or Wolf, the gods made us unique to show us they are amazing. And that is something worth while. I have hopes that when my reign does come to an end, Lord Aiden will guide fairly and justly.

Thank you for your time. Praise to the High Gods, and praise to all Catacopians and members of the 1000 Islands.

But mommy always knows best, doesn't she? You're not another rebellious teen, are you?

For the lower taxes: Don't fund so much programs and initiatives brought up in the issues. If science requires funding, expect taxes to go up. Same with health and education and whatever that needs to be funded. The money has to come from someone which in the end is the tax payer. It's not always like this, though. If you get an issue that is as straight forward as about lowering taxes or keeping them as is or raising them, then lower them if you want lower taxes.

For your nation's classification as a mother knows best state: you have to grant a bit more freedom in either civil or political rights. The key issue here is if the issues are about what the people may do and what they may not do.

Hakketomat is right.

Broadly though, there are two ways to lower taxes:

1) Cut spending.
2) Grow the economy.

Hakketomat wrote:

But mommy always knows best, doesn't she? You're not another rebellious teen, are you?
For the lower taxes: Don't fund so much programs and initiatives brought up in the issues. If science requires funding, expect taxes to go up. Same with health and education and whatever that needs to be funded. The money has to come from someone which in the end is the tax payer. It's not always like this, though. If you get an issue that is as straight forward as about lowering taxes or keeping them as is or raising them, then lower them if you want lower taxes.
For your nation's classification as a mother knows best state: you have to grant a bit more freedom in either civil or political rights. The key issue here is if the issues are about what the people may do and what they may not do.

I agree completely. I owned a puppet state that used to spend most of the tax payer's money, which in turn created a high tax rate. When I initiated a complete reform program on the government, (I decided differently :P) they cut spending tenfold and made the economy boom, and taxes decreased.

Although, if you're going to reform your government like what I did, you need to know that you'll have to give up some freedoms.

Jacsonica wrote:

Hello!

Hey