Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region RMB

WA Delegate (non-executive): The Federal Republic of Trans-American Empire (elected 244 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.

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 13 others.Libertatem, Benevolent Capitalism, Thessius, United Republic of Liberty, The Western Empire, The Illuminati, chris puppet storage, The Federal Islands 2nd Gen, The Military Commonwealth, The Outer Rim, John Galt, The Protectorate of Versus Militia, and Liberty Island.

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

Regional Power: Moderate

Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region contains 30 nations, the 377th most in the world.


Today's World Census Report

The Highest Drug Use in Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region

World Census experts sampled many cakes of dubious content to determine which nations' citizens consume the most recreational drugs.

As a region, Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region is ranked 5,691st in the world for Highest Drug Use.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Deacon Blues of AjaLeft-wing Utopia“I've got the news!”
2.The Federal Republic of IcookitAnarchy“Don't Tread on Me”
3.The Libertarian Society of Da FirenzeWA MemberAnarchy“Non Buelvo Sin Vencer”
4.The Free Land of Rothbardian FantasyCorporate Bordello“I frankly donít see anything wrong with greed. ”
5.The Republic of DrachillAnarchy“Live Free or Die”
6.The Free Land of New RemoAnarchy“Live and Let Live”
7.The Colony of Drake RiverCivil Rights Lovefest“A corner of the empire on which the sun never shines”
8.The Free Land of GulchCapitalist Paradise“Screw you guys”
9.The Free Republic of SpinozaCapitalizt“Fast and bulbous”
10.The Allied States of Reed AudioCorporate Bordello“Leave Us Alone.”
Page:  «  1  2  3  »

Regional Poll • Do corporations have the right to free speech?

The Democratic Republic of Xyanth wrote:Robert Kennedy Jr. thinks corporations should be forcibly dissolved by the government if they speak out against global warming/climate change. What do you think?

Voting opened 5 days ago and will close in 1 day 4 hours. Open to residents. You cannot vote as you are not logged in.

Last poll: “Should smart phone makers provide a back door into their encryption?”

Regional Happenings


Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region Regional Message Board

Rothbardian fantasy - you claim that "lots of countries" have such as the things as the First Amendment and Second Amendment is false.

These are important matters (freedom of speech, and the right to be armed - the defining feature of a free man in both Classical Civilisation, before the Roman Empire crushed it) and in the Germanic (and Nordic) Common Law tradition also.

In English Common Law the tradition of Chief Justice Sir Edward Cook and (a century later) Chief Justice Sir John Holt was crushed by the doctrine that Parliament can do anything it wants to (the doctrine of Blackstone and those who came after him) - but NOT in the United States.

Your statement that "lots of countries" have a First Amendment and a Second Amendment is false. Actually virtually none do - not if you look at the texts in detail. What they normally say is something like "freedom of speech - subject to law..." (i.e. not freedom of speech) or (like the Mexican Constitution) the right to keep and bear arms is utterly castrated (there - till one looks at the small print).

By the way I am NOT an American - I just dislike fundamental error, such as the claim that "lots of countries" have the First and Second Amendments (full freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms) AND your talk about the European Convention - for example the "right to privacy" (i.e. the right to censorship) and so on. Sir most British people want to get out of the European Convention on Human Rights (once separate to the European Union - but the E.U. has now declared the, once separate, European Convention one of its fundamental documents) and with good reason.

The European Convention (like the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights - written by Harold Laski, E.H. Carr and other totalitarians) does NOT protect the fundamental freedoms (no First Amendment in it - nor a Second Amendment), on the contrary it is a weapon for the P.C. elite to use AGAINST the ordinary people.

I am glad that is dealt with. It seems my Spider Sense (just call me Peter Parker - well his grandfather anyway) was not wrong about Rothhbardian Fantasy.

A corporation is no just a commercial company (not that there is anything wrong with commercial companies) - bodies corporate also include (and always have), clubs, societies, churches and so on. To say that "corporations" have no freedom of speech puts a person on the same side as those who wish to persecute Churches for daring to say no P.C. things.

Also the "I am against corporations doing...." is a con any way, as leftists are also against INDIVIDUALS spending their own money promoting their opinions (i.e. speaking against the near monopoly the left has in the media, especially the entertainment media). Those leftists who attack "the establishment" ARE THE ESTABLISHMENT - the control the schools, the universities, Hollywood, most of the news media (and on and on).

Also the hatred of "the rich" is very selective - Charles and David Koch? Boo-hiss. But all those billionaires who put money into (for example) the Tides Foundation, are fine.........

On commercial companies - "corporations".

American companies face some of the highest company taxation in the Western world, and American executives can be sent to prison for what would be considered clerical errors in most countries.

Remember that when the followers of the Red Flag (and the followers of the Black Flag) tell you that the United States of America is ruled by (or in the interests of) "capitalist big business".

Quoting Milton Friedman - and then drawing a conclusion that was the OPPPOSITE of what Milton Friedman means (the old Kevin Carson trick - with various free market thinkers). And then citing the Economist magazine (the sister publication of the Financial Times newspaper) - a magazine I detest (and with good reason). Yes me "spider sense" was correct - "always trust your gut" (especially when the your gut is as HUGE as mine......).

As for social mobility in the United States. Getting rid of "bog standard" government education would be a start - in (for example) Germany even government schools (especially in traditional places such as Bavaria) try and teach children useful information and skills, in the United States (which spends far MORE taxpayer money on schools) "self esteem" is key (one must not hurt the little darlings feelings by telling them they are ignorant s...... who need to knuckle down learn, or they will spend the rest of their lives saying "would you like fries with that Sir?".

If there has to be a government school system - it should concentrate on teaching the children things that will be useful to them in advancing their position in life (for the academically minded, academic stuff, but for others useful skills in metal shop and so on - so they can become skilled people, "with a trade" and their feet on the ladder of advancement within the company they work for, and there are too many marketing men and lawyers in the top ranks of companies and not enough engineers - due to all the government regulations companies have to face these days).

Presently too many government schools (at least in the United States) are P.C. playpens - wildly expensive P.C. playpens.
If parents had their own money to spend on education they would demand that the schools teach their children things that will be of use to them in their adult lives - but as it is, the parents have their money taxed away and it is handed over to "Progressive" leftists who dominate teacher training and so on.

Also America varies - massively.

State and local taxes (before one even looks at Federal ones) take more than 20% of the economy is a place like Bridgeport Conn, but less than 5% of the economy in a place like Cheyanne Wyoming.

It is not just taxes - culture and ethnic mix also varies wildly over the United States. Although Europe may now itself be experiencing the rather mixed blessings of demographic change. Still such is life - nothing lasts for ever, and one must look for the good (not just the bad) in social change.

My typing is falling apart - most likely the result of not sleeping for a couple of days.

The problems the United States now faces (the explosion in the size and scope of the Federal government - and its ordering about of both State and local governments, in such things as education, and ordinary people and enterprises) are due to the failure to enforce the Tenth Amendment.

The argument of the Progressive establishment is that because the Tenth Amendment does not include the word "specifically" it is legally meaningless. That strikes me as a breathtakingly dishonest "argument".

Reed Audio: Lots of countries do have an equivalent of the Bill of Rights (which is what I said). You're quite right when you say that these do not have anything corresponding to the Second Amendment. You obviously think that's important. I don't.

As it happens, I have no particular objection to corporations making political donations. The issues of corporate personhood and political donations are actually eminently separable. For example, one could argue as follows:
1. Corporations are a form of property.
2. People have the right to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that they do not infringe on the rights of others in so doing.
3. Donating money to a political cause (a candidate, a party...whatever) does not infringe anyone else's rights. There are exceptions here, of course- contributing money to ISIL obviously does infringe on the rights of others.
4. Accordingly, shareholders have the right to use their property to fund political causes. There is no difference in principle between contributing via a company and simply writing a personal cheque.

I don't really see why you object to my quoting Friedman. I did so in order to
a) show that social mobility isn't a 'left-wing' concept.
b) show why it might be important (if nothing else, it's one indicator of societal health).

I actually agree with what Friedman says in the quoted passage- all other things being equal, you should see more social mobility in a market economy than in a command economy. The fact that Denmark has more social mobility than the US (which is obviously more free-market) indicates that all other things aren't equal, and factors other than economic structure must be involved. The Economist article is interesting because it tries to explain what the other factors might be.

You may well be right about the role of education in this. I agree completely about the importance of vocational education. Your description of education in the US is depressingly familiar; things in the UK are much the same.

I've just done a search on the Danish education system. Having skimmed some articles on the subject, I think I can safely say that their system is a lot better than the British one, or presumably the American one. For example: the whole system is free, the substantial private chunk of it being funded by a voucher system; 51% of secondary school students are in vocational education, 49% in the academic stream that prepares them for University; there is a large, free adult education sector. Their expenditure per student is roughly the same as the US.

Spider sense? Peter Parker? You need to go back on your medication.

The Free Land of Rothbardian Fantasy wrote:Reed Audio: Lots of countries do have an equivalent of the Bill of Rights (which is what I said). You're quite right when you say that these do not have anything corresponding to the Second Amendment. You obviously think that's important. I don't.

Why don't you think the Second Amendment is as important as any of the other fundamental right?

The Free Land of Rothbardian Fantasy wrote:Spider sense? Peter Parker? You need to go back on your medication.

Nonsense. He does his best writing when unmedicated and tingling.

I don't regard the 'right to bear arms' as a fundamental right. I see it more as a societal choice- the US has chosen to establish bearing arms as a 'right'; other countries haven't.

If Americans want to own lots of firearms, then that's fine with me- I don't have any problem with the Second Amendment. I do think that both sides in the American gun control debate have over-estimated the importance of the issue. For example:

- Guns don't make you free. Private gun ownership was extremely common in Saddam's Iraq; contrary to NRA propaganda, Hitler actually relaxed gun control after coming to power. In Jefferson's day, the state had access to the same weaponry as private citizens, plus some cumbersome artillery that was mainly useful in set piece battles. Back then, privately owned firearms really were a potential barrier to tyranny. Nowadays the state has tanks, attack helicopters, fuel-air bombs and so on- privately owned firearms are no more useful in resisting the modern state than swords were in the eighteenth century.

- Private gun ownership doesn't cause crime. Most gun crime in America involves illegal firearms; tightening up the laws would arguably benefit the criminal class by disarming their potential victims. A number of European states (Switzerland, Norway, Finland) have high levels of private gun ownership and low murder rates. When considering the causes of America's problems with crime, the whole gun control thing is frankly a red herring.

Rothbardian Fantasy - the discussion was about the First and Second Amendments, if you can produce "a lot countries" that have both of those (NOT places that seem to have them - but do not when one looks at the small print) then you have a point. But you can not - so you do not.

I remember reading the new (well few years old now) Swiss Constitution - Switzerland being the nation that (apart from the United States) is supposed to understand the old principles best (or perhaps "least worst" would be better). I was very let down indeed - from the first few words it was obvious that this Swiss Constitution was nothing like the United States Constitution orthe various State Constitutions (such as that of Texas). What should have been proof that the United States was NOT exceptional turned out to be proof that the United States was exceptional - in spite of the massive growth of government (the Welfare State) and all the other betrayals.

The United States is exceptional - even now (so live with it - or better help in the desperate effort to defend and restore the United States, something that is NOT the concern of Americans only but is the concern of all people who love freedom everywhere).

As for "get back on my medication"- I have many illnesses (so to which one do you refer?). None of problems is in fact mental - all physical.

Actually I did make an error in my comments - but you do not seem to have spotted it (although you have spotted my error and decided not to point it out - as a kind gesture). I mentioned that Cheyanne Wyoming had low taxes - thus implying that it was a small government place, but (of course) that leaves out the fact that the government of Wyoming is based there.

If one wants an example of somewhere in the United States that is (relatively) low government in both taxes and government spending, then Casper Wyoming (or Rapid City South Dakota) would be better.

Of course nowhere in the United States is truly low government any more - not in modern times.

Although even as late as 1950 (i.e. long after the New Deal) total government spending (Federal, State and local) was still only around 20% of the economy in the United States (in 1928 it has been about 10%). And, unlike most of Latin America, most of the United States did not (and still today does not) did not have unofficial taxes (where local police and officials demand extra money with the threat of violence - thus making most Latin American "government as a percentage of GDP" figures meaningless). Although modern America has its own corrupt practices - such as Asset Seizure "laws" which are in direct violation of the 4th Amendment (although the Supreme Court, in a terrible test case, declared it did not).

Even up to the start of the 1960s the United States was not a Welfare State - which made it exceptional in relation to all other large Western nations (including Denmark), but in the 1960s the United States was transformed (and the schemes created in the 1960s such as Food Stamps and Medicare have continued to grow - so that they are now huge) - so I AGREE with you that America is no longer exceptional in this respect.

I agree with you about American firearms being a red herring in relation to crime.

London (for example) had far LESS gun control than New York City before the First World War (and firearms were actually very common in London before the First World War) but its murder rate was vastly less.

However, even here (on the issue of firearms) you say some really weird things.

For example Mr Hitler certainly did not "relax" firearm regulations in relation to JEWS - which is the point that Stephen H. and others make in relation to the National Socialist regime (that it targeted Jews to be disarmed - and then, mostly, murdered).

As for your comment "I don't" in relation to regarding the Second Amendment (drawn from the old British Bill of Rights of course) as important. Was that a typo? I am a terrible typist - so I am in no position to gloat if it was a typing mistake (as I most likely make a thousand typing mistakes for every one you make).

You can not seriously think that the Second Amendment is NOT important, can you?

What about the First Amendment (freedom of speech - with no small print qualifications making it meaningless, as in European Constitutions) is that not important?

I was joking about Spider Sense - I am not really Spiderman (or the grandfather of Spiderman - actually the "real father of Spiderman" is a private joke when you look up the person who actually created the character, it was not Stan Lee, it was an American Objectivist S.D.). But perhaps I should not have been joking.

Someone who does not understand that the United States is special (exceptional) and that the survival of the West is bound up with the survival (indeed constitutional restoration) of the United States, has got a lot to learn. Although (of course) all of us have a lot to learn - I am sure there are vast areas of important knowledge of which I know nothing.

The United States is in political and cultural decline and has been for a long time.

If Britain vanished tomorrow it would be very sad (alas the world deprived of ME - how terrible, oh dear, how sad, never mind), but Western civilisation would survive. If the United States collapses the West will fall - fall into a new Dark Age or be overwhelmed by the forces of evil. The West may fall so much that it will be as if it never existed at all, the very principles themselves forgotten from the world.

That is why the United States (its survival and the struggle for its restoration - for the reversal of its decline) is exceptional - in the sense of being exceptionally important.

The Free Land of Rothbardian Fantasy wrote:I don't regard the 'right to bear arms' as a fundamental right.

Ok. If you are cornered, either at home, at work, at school, at the mall, etc, by anyone threatening your property, safety or life, do you believe there is a fundamental right to defend yourself or those around you?

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics