Laissez Faireholm RMB

WA Delegate: The Motors of Lincoln Sydney (elected )

Founder: 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 62 others.New Europe, Zarathustra, North Africa, International Republican Union, The Commonwealth Of Furry Peoples, United Empire of Islam, League of Christian Nations, Confederation of Nations, Strategos Prime, Zentari, League of Cobalt Nations, Arctic, The Western Empire, Gay, Isles of Socialism, The Illuminati, Ivory Tower, Antista, The Hyatt Islands, Northern Emirates, The Seventh Bay, The Versutian Federation, Fusionism, Austritaria, Paraguay, International Commonwealth Of Nations, The Liberty Sector, Transhuman Singularity Research Alliance, Oceanside, Deutschland, Ankh Mauta, Anarcho Pragmatism, The Evil Genius Archipelago, Anarchy, The Atlas Union, European Region, League of Nations, Classical Liberal Union, New Vatican, The Atheist Empire, Continent of Xenonia, The International Commerce Guild, Avadam Inn, Federation of Free States, The Waters of Lethe, Dill Country, The New Axis Powers, Mont Pelerin Society, Democratic Egalitarianism, New Republica, The Utopian Freesocialists, Creative Nothing, The Christian Nations, Turkic Union, Iura Pecunia et libertas, Coalition of Nightwatchman States, Land of Absolute Freedom, Antas, Liberland, Imperial Russian Empire, Mphela, and The Stupid Region.

Tags: Anti-Fascist, National Sovereigntist, Offsite Forums, General Assembly, Anarchist, Industrial, Monarchist, Independent, Featured, Password, Conservative, Liberal, and 14 others.Libertarian, Medium, Regional Government, Democratic, Capitalist, Social, Generalite, Free Trade, Isolationist, Role Player, Founderless, Anti-Communist, Serious, and World Assembly.

Regional Power: Moderate

Laissez Faireholm contains 45 nations, the 249th most in the world.

Password required

Today's World Census Report

The Highest Average Tax Rates in Laissez Faireholm

Although some nations have similar tax rates for all citizens and others tax the rich much more heavily than the poor, the following provides a rough guide to the most taxing governments.

As a region, Laissez Faireholm is ranked 17,234th in the world for Highest Average Tax Rates.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The United Socialist States of MarlencomPsychotic Dictatorship“Munire viam ad Communismum”
2.The Green Kingdom of FerrianonaWA MemberAuthoritarian Democracy“GABEN”
3.The People's Republic of AlyakiaWA MemberDemocratic Socialists“A love that crushes like a mace”
4.The Republic of AtlanticatiaWA MemberLeft-wing Utopia“Solidarity among individuals”
5.The Confederacy of Neu RilkaScandinavian Liberal Paradise“Freiheit über den Tod”
6.The Republic of WeslostanPsychotic Dictatorship“Weslo”
7.The Democratic People's Republic of SergeyLeft-Leaning College State“Working Together For a Better World”
8.The Democratic Republic of Yes We CanNew York Times Democracy“Bigger is Better”
9.The Republic of Isles ArgentumCivil Rights Lovefest“Citizens United Through Liberty”
10.The Motors of Lincoln SydneyWA MemberCivil Rights Lovefest“Smarter Than Luxury”
Page:  «  1  2  3  4  5  »

Regional Happenings

More...

Laissez Faireholm Regional Message Board

Post self-deleted by Sibirsky.

Without government, we'll have government, so we need a government to protect us from government.

The Free Confederacy of Vecherd wrote:I like the new logo more, seems more modern and not to stuck up in American Exceptionalism. Also the slogan sounds more radical.(minimum vs less)


Definitely cut back on the usual tribalist "look at muh country and how unique we are!"

American "exceptionalism"
French "excellence"
German "efficiency"
Norwegian whatever 'you guys' think yourselves to be. Compassionate?

You get the idea.

Sibirsky

I am not an anarchist for three reasons below:

Theoretical limitations - Ancapism may rebound into a state (using Nozick's logic as I presented above) that could be worse than even the most libertarian state, and therefore destroys itself. A minimal state is the only strong guarantee that libertarianism can exist in a chaotic, conflicting world.
Philosophical differences - Anarchism is a contravention of the non-aggression principle it believes it sticks to, in which it makes following the NAP completely voluntary and therefore destroys the philosophical foundation it is built upon. No general law and order function to enforce the non-aggression principle = no libertarian society, but instead a society that treats the NAP as a mere suggestion.
Practical limitations - Anarchy is not sellable to the public, the majority of people are statists, and education alone is not enough to convert people.

You say that we should strive for more freedom, more libertarianism, and I agree. But to what extent? If anarcho-capitalism is the "end goal" so to speak, why do you ignore say, striving towards anarcho-communism? Is that not a greater end goal, a society in which poverty doesn't exist, everyone is "equal," and blahblahblah?

The Confederation of The Liberated Territories wrote:Definitely cut back on the usual tribalist "look at muh country and how unique we are!"

American "exceptionalism"
French "excellence"
German "efficiency"
Norwegian whatever 'you guys' think yourselves to be. Compassionate?

You get the idea.

Sibirsky

I am not an anarchist for three reasons below:

Theoretical limitations - Ancapism may rebound into a state (using Nozick's logic as I presented above) that could be worse than even the most libertarian state, and therefore destroys itself. A minimal state is the only strong guarantee that libertarianism can exist in a chaotic, conflicting world.

The true naive utopian is somebody who thinks that giving a group of people all the guns and all the power can limit itself. Force change through the political system? Maybe. But what happens when the political system changes? Liberty can easily be lost. As long as government exists, there will always be socialists, nativists and parasites to take advantage of it and sway public opinion. There is no guaranteed that a minarchist state can remain forever.

The Confederation of The Liberated Territories wrote:Philosophical differences - Anarchism is a contravention of the non-aggression principle it believes it sticks to, in which it makes following the NAP completely voluntary and therefore destroys the philosophical foundation it is built upon. No general law and order function to enforce the non-aggression principle = no libertarian society, but instead a society that treats the NAP as a mere suggestion.
Practical limitations - Anarchy is not sellable to the public, the majority of people are statists, and education alone is not enough to convert people.

You've been listening to Austin Petersen too much. People must be taught moral values. The NAP is already believed in by most human beings, except when it concerns government. Almost everybody believes that killing and stealing is wrong. The great ethical challenge of our time is to convince the people that morality applies not only to individuals, but groups as well. Education can indeed sway the masses.

The Confederation of The Liberated Territories wrote:You say that we should strive for more freedom, more libertarianism, and I agree. But to what extent? If anarcho-capitalism is the "end goal" so to speak, why do you ignore say, striving towards anarcho-communism? Is that not a greater end goal, a society in which poverty doesn't exist, everyone is "equal," and blahblahblah?

What the hell has that got to do with anything? None of the libertarians here want "anarcho"-communism because we believe it is inherently statist and antithetical to freedom, along with being massively impractical. Anarcho-capitalism is believed in by ancaps because we believe it will lead to the most desirable long-term outcomes for humanity.

The Pevvania of Cosmo Kramer wrote:The true naive utopian is somebody who thinks that giving a group of people all the guns and all the power can limit itself. Force change through the political system? Maybe. But what happens when the political system changes? Liberty can easily be lost. As long as government exists, there will always be socialists, nativists and parasites to take advantage of it and sway public opinion. There is no guaranteed that a minarchist state can remain forever.


Socialists, nativists, and parasites will exist regardless of the size of the government, except maybe in a huge Pinochet government where you can just silence them all. Perhaps you'd like that better, as it would be the best way to achieve your utopia where everyone is the same and no one holds counter-anarchist positions to the Natural Market Order.

Tell me, did "market forces" stop the Bolsheviks from getting into power? Did market forces stop the Romans from coercing anarchic primitive societies to join them or die? Where, in the state of nature, do market forces self regulate themselves? If one traces the development of the nation-state, one will get to a point where there is anarchy, and in anarchy there was enough imbalance for some group of people to say "hey, this force stuff really works!"

what happens when the political system changes? Then we change with it. If fascists or other authoritarian socialists take over, are we supposed to bind ourselves to the NAP and willingly allow ourselves to be jailed or sent to gulag? Of course not. We are peaceful now because peaceful attitudes are a realistic way to fight for what we believe in, but if that opportunity is taken away from us, then we become more like the revolutionaries of America and France - libertarian freedom fighters who don't sit around waiting for utopia to happen.

A good analogy is the fact that libertarians in New Hampshire have successfully gotten into government (even a couple anarchists) through peaceful measures, but violent libertarians have instead been awarded with more police militarization - achieving exactly the opposite that they want. But if New Hampshire (or the US, or whatever governmental institution) becomes increasingly hostile to peaceful processes, then the net benefit of revolting violently might override political action and winning the hearts and minds of people. Currently, we are not at that point, and revolting now could damage the movement forever.

The Pevvania of Cosmo Kramer wrote:You've been listening to Austin Petersen too much. People must be taught moral values. The NAP is already believed in by most human beings, except when it concerns government. Almost everybody believes that killing and stealing is wrong. The great ethical challenge of our time is to convince the people that morality applies not only to individuals, but groups as well. Education can indeed sway the masses.


People only obey the NAP BECAUSE they are limited in real life from violating it. Without the invisible threat of the policeman, people would rob, murder, and steal, but the sole fact that people CAN get arrested, put to court, and sentenced for doing so. Christian morality did not stop Christians from violating it (lol inquisition), why do you think that libertarian morality would correctly govern a libertarian society? Morality has always been consequential in real life, and always subjective. It is you, Pev, who is foolish to think that people's morals will change and people will always obey the NAP in an anarchist society. It's the kinda nonsense that discredits Rothbard as a major libertarian figure outside of ancap circles.

The Pevvania of Cosmo Kramer wrote:What the hell has that got to do with anything? None of the libertarians here want "anarcho"-communism because we believe it is inherently statist and antithetical to freedom, along with being massively impractical. Anarcho-capitalism is believed in by ancaps because we believe it will lead to the most desirable long-term outcomes for humanity.


holy sh!t dude that's like half the minarchist argument in the first place. Thanks for proving my point unwittingly.

The Confederation of The Liberated Territories wrote:You say that we should strive for more freedom, more libertarianism, and I agree. But to what extent? If anarcho-capitalism is the "end goal" so to speak, why do you ignore say, striving towards anarcho-communism? Is that not a greater end goal, a society in which poverty doesn't exist, everyone is "equal," and blahblahblah?

Lolwut? Equality can only be attained through force. Communism is mandated poverty.

The Confederation of The Liberated Territories wrote:what happens when the political system changes? Then we change with it. If fascists or other authoritarian socialists take over, are we supposed to bind ourselves to the NAP and willingly allow ourselves to be jailed or sent to gulag? Of course not. We are peaceful now because peaceful attitudes are a realistic way to fight for what we believe in, but if that opportunity is taken away from us, then we become more like the revolutionaries of America and France - libertarian freedom fighters who don't sit around waiting for utopia to happen.

This already happened. In every single nation. Tens of millions of peaceful people are locked up in cages all over the world.

The Confederation of The Liberated Territories wrote:
A good analogy is the fact that libertarians in New Hampshire have successfully gotten into government (even a couple anarchists) through peaceful measures, but violent libertarians have instead been awarded with more police militarization - achieving exactly the opposite that they want. But if New Hampshire (or the US, or whatever governmental institution) becomes increasingly hostile to peaceful processes, then the net benefit of revolting violently might override political action and winning the hearts and minds of people. Currently, we are not at that point, and revolting now could damage the movement forever.

Violent libertarians? What? The term is an oxymoron. By definition, violence is not libertarian.

The Confederation of The Liberated Territories wrote:
People only obey the NAP BECAUSE they are limited in real life from violating it. Without the invisible threat of the policeman, people would rob, murder, and steal, but the sole fact that people CAN get arrested, put to court, and sentenced for doing so. Christian morality did not stop Christians from violating it (lol inquisition), why do you think that libertarian morality would correctly govern a libertarian society? Morality has always been consequential in real life, and always subjective. It is you, Pev, who is foolish to think that people's morals will change and people will always obey the NAP in an anarchist society. It's the kinda nonsense that discredits Rothbard as a major libertarian figure outside of ancap circles.

Most people do not rob and murder because they have moral objections to robbery and murder, and they are not pieces of sh!t. Not due to the threat of prosecution.

That being said, an anarchist society does have ways of dealing with such people. Opinions on the matter differ, but tons of anarchist literature deals with this.

Cosmo Kramer

This is why praising Denmark as a social democratic success model is a bad idea:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/27/denmark-fears-it-has-been-victim-of-biggest-ever-800m-tax

Nothing ever bad happens when you raise taxes! Promise! Social democracy works people! You just got to beeeeellllieeeevveee.

(This is targeting Atlanticatia mostly)

http://www.dharmanation.org/media/tumblr_m6cgl4oSEC1qj6owio1_500.jpg

The Confederation of The Liberated Territories wrote:
Nothing bad ever happens when you give a group of people power over others! Promise! Statism works, people! You just got to beeeeellllieeeevveee.

http://www.dharmanation.org/media/tumblr_m6cgl4oSEC1qj6owio1_500.jpg

The Confederation of The Liberated Territories wrote:This is why praising Denmark as a social democratic success model is a bad idea:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/27/denmark-fears-it-has-been-victim-of-biggest-ever-800m-tax

Nothing ever bad happens when you raise taxes! Promise! Social democracy works people! You just got to beeeeellllieeeevveee.

(This is targeting Atlanticatia mostly)

http://www.dharmanation.org/media/tumblr_m6cgl4oSEC1qj6owio1_500.jpg


Companies do illegal things all the time. Denmark still collects the highest taxes in the world as a % of GDP. Not sure what you're attempting to prove.

The Republic of Atlanticatia wrote:Companies do illegal things all the time. Denmark still collects the highest taxes in the world as a % of GDP. Not sure what you're attempting to prove.

States do illegal things all the time.

Higher taxes are not something to praise.

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics