Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region RMB

WA Delegate (non-executive): The Federal Republic of Trans-American Empire (elected 254 days ago)

Founder: The Democratic Republic of Xyanth

World Factbook Entry

We invite political debate here. Many times these debates grow heated. If you are the type of person who's feelings get hurt over sarcasm or having your reality challenged, you do not belong here. People complaining to NS moderators over posts on this RMB will be banned for their own good. Better they should be in a place they can be happy.

Raiders, grief givers and spammers will be ejected and banned without warning. Spamming includes multiple one line entries. Those that enter the region, post and run will also be banned.

Infection Rate: 0.8% (995 million infected, 126.60 billion survivors)

Cure Status: Distributing to infected

Infection Status: -94.4 Under Control

Zombie Border Control: Borders Closed

Embassies: Capitalist Paradise, The Ascendancy, United Republic of Nations, Cashnatchee, Eladen, Coalition of Democratic States, The United League, Laissez Faireholm, New Republica, The Alliance Pocket Universe, League of Christian Nations, Unitarian Union, The Autocratic Imperium of Nations, The Darwin Allied Republics, Union of Nationalists, the Land of Power, and 10 others.Libertatem, Benevolent Capitalism, The Western Empire, The Illuminati, chris puppet storage, The Federal Islands 2nd Gen, The Military Commonwealth, The Outer Rim, John Galt, and The Protectorate of Versus Militia.

Tags: Democratic, Capitalist, National Sovereigntist, Social, Industrial, Free Trade, Independent, Modern Tech, Medium, and Libertarian.

Regional Power: Moderate

Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region contains 32 nations, the 348th most in the world.

ActivityHistoryAdministration

Today's World Census Report

The Largest Manufacturing Sector in Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region

As a region, Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region is ranked 74th in the world for Largest Manufacturing Sector.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Allied States of Reed AudioCorporate Bordello“Leave Us Alone.”
2.The Democratic Republic of XyanthCapitalizt“If there ain't a buck in it, then pack it in.”
3.The Free Republic of JakaniaCapitalist Paradise“Peace and Prosperity Through Freedom and Responsibility”
4.The Parent Company of HollipWA MemberCapitalist Paradise“Now with 50% added outsourcing!”
5.The Fedorapublic of JadentopiaWA MemberCorporate Police State“Get Shrekt M8.”
6.The Free Republic of SpinozaCapitalizt“Fast and bulbous”
7.The Federal Republic of IcookitAnarchy“Don't Tread on Me”
8.The Educational Constituency of PhrontisteriesCivil Rights Lovefest“We are the application of knowledge.”
9.The Republic of Nash HintonWA MemberAnarchy“Long live liberty, equality, and progress.”
10.The Incorporated States of Principality of ZundrbarAnarchy“Sic semper tyrannis”
Page:  «  1  2  3  4  »

Recent polls: “Does "white privilege" exist?”“Do corporations have the right to free speech?”

Regional Happenings

More...

Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region Regional Message Board

The Democratic Republic of Xyanth wrote:You cannot have this both ways. If you have a fundamental right to defend yourself from attack, how do you justify leaving yourself or others defenseless against an armed attacker? Bare hands are pretty much useless against a machete. A "Crocodile Dundee Now That's A Knife" sized blade is beyond useless against someone shooting a gun. (Insert old joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight here.)

When one regulates force in the area of self defense, one handicaps those that obey the law and create an advantage to those that routinely break it. How does that social law fit in with your idea of a fundamental human right to defend one's self?

Rights are often in conflict with each other. Democracy is the best way of sorting out conflicts between different rights.

A standard example: My right to free speech can conflict with someone else's right to life (which does NOT extend to foetuses) if I shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. Quite rightly, this is an illegal thing to do in all jurisdictions.

The 'right to bear arms' also potentially conflicts with the right to life. In an armed society, there will be accidents- innocent people hit by stray bullets; children getting hold of improperly stored guns with fatal consequences etc. And while private gun ownership doesn't lead to violent crime (in the sense of hold-ups, deliberate killings and so on), in an armed society you'll always have the possibility of a crazy person getting hold of a gun and going on a shooting spree.

Guns are dangerous. If they weren't dangerous then they wouldn't be useful as guns. If the people wish to restrict their ownership, then surely that falls within their right to self-protection.

The Democratic Republic of Xyanth wrote:Re: "White Privilege," it is difficult for me to hear that phrase without feeling just a little bit of anger. Aside from the asinine use the politically correct crowd to distract from real issues, for my part this is a result of being a white male that was actively discriminated against when it came to hiring during the beginnings of quota days. While it is always hard to be turned down for a job, there is something special about losing out on a job to someone far less qualified simply because they are minority.

That whole white privilege things king of sucked for white men during the decade running from 1976-1986.

That's really rough. I can understand the anger.

This isn't an area that I know a great deal about. However, it's my impression that the whole positive discrimination/ reverse racism thing was (and probably still is) a lot more prevalent in the US than the UK. My working life started in the mid 80s, and I've never experienced anything like what you describe; nor has anyone that I know.

I have explained what I mean (multiple times) and Rothbardian Fantasy does not understand what I am talking about - perhaps that is my fault for being bad at explaining, but (whether it is or not) I am not going to spend any more time on it. Apart from to say that, no, the new Swiss Constitution is certainly not a "fine document" - although most nonAmerican Constitutions are worse (than actively compel governments to be massively collectivist - even if they do not wish to be, with lists of "positive rights").

There is no "right to life" in a LITERAL sense - we are not immortal, and we do not have right to use the threat of violence to make other people feed us (and so on).

There is a right not to be murdered - and many tools (including a car - as ISIS suggests, and the suggestion was acted upon in Canada) can be used to kill. Saying that gun control regulations may be valid because "the right to bear arms may conflict with the right to life" is absurd.

"White Privilege" is BS and it is especially harmful to BLACK people - as it tells them that that nothing is their own fault. The cultural collapse among American blacks can not be explained by "slavery" or "segregation" - because such things as the black family were far STRONGER 60 years ago than they are today. Now white Americans are doing down the same road - the road of the collapse of the family and a massive rise in welfare dependency, is this also to be "explained" by "slavery" and "segregation"?

Leftists (such as the life long socialist and Norman Thomas fan "Jon Stewart") seek to expand the very policies that had failed (indeed been radically counter productive) over the last 50 years (the government "war and poverty" and "anti discrimination" tap dance). It they win they will turn the entire United States into a waste land like Detroit. As Walter Williams would say - God save blacks from their "friends".

By the way I should have typed "they actively compel" not "than actively compel" above.

But what sort of person looks at something like the new Swiss Constitution (with all that is wrong with it) and thinks the problem with it is its "theism" (i.e. the mention of God)?

Please do not answer - I do not want to know.

The Free Land of Rothbardian Fantasy wrote:The 'right to bear arms' also potentially conflicts with the right to life. In an armed society, there will be accidents- innocent people hit by stray bullets; children getting hold of improperly stored guns with fatal consequences etc. And while private gun ownership doesn't lead to violent crime (in the sense of hold-ups, deliberate killings and so on), in an armed society you'll always have the possibility of a crazy person getting hold of a gun and going on a shooting spree.

Using your logic we are going to have to outlaw cars and trucks just to start. More people are killed in traffic accidents every month in this country then are killed by guns every year.

In fact if we look at annual death statistics by other then natural causes, it looks to me like swimming pools, bath tubs and small recreational vehicles (ATVs) as well. If we trim the number of death by fire arm to eliminate suicides and stupidity, the list of things we are going to have to outlaw gets even longer.

The Free Land of Rothbardian Fantasy wrote:Guns are dangerous. If they weren't dangerous then they wouldn't be useful as guns. If the people wish to restrict their ownership, then surely that falls within their right to self-protection.

I'm not following your logic here. My guns are not dangerous to anyone unless you kick in my front door. If I were carrying concealed, no one would know it unless someone presented a grave threat in my presence. That is not dangerous to anyone but the person presenting the threat.

The people are not going to protect me. In fact, where I live on a really good day the the sheriff won't even be there for the first 15 to 20 minutes on an urgent call for help.

So setting aside concealed carry arguments for the moment, explain to me why the people should have the right to disarm me in my own home or on my own property?

The Allied States of Reed Audio wrote:I have explained what I mean (multiple times) and Rothbardian Fantasy does not understand what I am talking about - perhaps that is my fault for being bad at explaining, but (whether it is or not) I am not going to spend any more time on it. Apart from to say that, no, the new Swiss Constitution is certainly not a "fine document" - although most nonAmerican Constitutions are worse (than actively compel governments to be massively collectivist - even if they do not wish to be, with lists of "positive rights").

I understand you completely; I just don't agree with you. There's a difference.

The Allied States of Reed Audio wrote:Saying that gun control regulations may be valid because "the right to bear arms may conflict with the right to life" is absurd.

To be honest, I find the whole idea of a 'right to bear arms' absurd.

The Free Land of Rothbardian Fantasy wrote:To be honest, I find the whole idea of a 'right to bear arms' absurd.

You are in conflict with your own statements on the matter.

In one post you write:

The Free Land of Rothbardian Fantasy wrote:Of course I have a fundamental right to defend myself and those around me.

But in that same post and you wrote,

The Free Land of Rothbardian Fantasy wrote:But it doesn't follow that I have a fundamental right to own a gun.

With that post, along with your last post, quoted above, your own statements are in conflict with that fundamental right to defend one's self against attack. By limiting the response to an armed attack, you take away that "fundamental right."

Looking at this from a practical point of view, the very nature of an attack proves people who attack others are not concerned with anyone's rights. If the person being attacked is greatly outmatched due to size, disability, weapons or what ever reason, your philosophy will render the attacked defenseless.

You cannot have it both ways. There is either a fundamental right[1] to defend one's self, maybe those around you in need of defense, possibly even your property, or there is not. The bad guys are not going to respect any restrictions you place on their weapons.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] This brings up another point. There are lots of people spouting of lots of rubbish about human rights, economic rights, animal rights, employee rights, basic rights, ecological rights, personal rights, religious rights, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

The reality is most of these "rights" only exist in the minds of those screaming about them. The truth is you only have the rights that your government and its courts are willing to enforce for you. To a far less extent, you may also have rights you are personally willing to fight for to keep.

My puppet posted that last message. Sorry about that, it is from me.

Post self-deleted by Xyanth.

New poll on Monday. The zombie thing had me kind of tied up.

Can you stop attacking my zombies

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics