by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

WA Delegate: The Low-Key Den Mother of Octal (elected )

Founder: The Capitalist Alliance of The-CID

Last WA Update:

Board Activity History Admin Rank

Most World Assembly Endorsements: 30th Most Influential: 44th Most Nations: 84th+31
Lowest Overall Tax Burden: 190th Highest Disposable Incomes: 363rd Rudest Citizens: 366th Highest Wealthy Incomes: 514th Largest Soda Pop Sector: 516th Highest Unexpected Death Rate: 523rd Fattest Citizens: 524th Most Avoided: 570th Largest Retail Industry: 581st Most Rebellious Youth: 693rd Most Valuable International Artwork: 721st Most Armed: 855th Highest Economic Output: 1,118th Largest Automobile Manufacturing Sector: 1,135th Highest Crime Rates: 1,202nd Largest Publishing Industry: 1,276th Largest Gambling Industry: 1,302nd Highest Average Incomes: 1,316th Largest Mining Sector: 1,391st Most Scientifically Advanced: 1,409th Greatest Rich-Poor Divides: 1,430th Largest Information Technology Sector: 1,499th Most Cultured: 1,595th Largest Black Market: 1,689th Largest Manufacturing Sector: 1,729th Smartest Citizens: 1,773rd Most Corrupt Governments: 2,060th Largest Pizza Delivery Sector: 2,244th Largest Timber Woodchipping Industry: 2,482nd Largest Arms Manufacturing Sector: 2,517th Largest Furniture Restoration Industry: 2,586th
World Factbook Entry

Welcome to Capitalist Paradise!


⧫⧫ LinkConstitution ⧫⧫ LinkCapitalistParadise.com ⧫⧫ LinkCP Discord ⧫⧫ Role-play ⧫⧫

Founded in May 2003, this is a friendly and secure region for nations with exceptionally strong economies, good civil rights and political freedoms.
We are the largest capitalist orientated region in the game and also this is one of the oldest player created regions in NationStates.
We welcome nations of all categories. Great and respectful political & economical debates are always encouraged in our RMB.

Please support our region by endorsing our lawfully elected World Assembly Delegate.


~ From Liberty, Prosperity; From Prosperity, Freedom ~



  1. 1

    Capitalist Paradise | Embassies

    MetaReference by The united oman . 1,023 reads.

  2. 1

    Capitalist Paradise | Roleplay

    MetaReference by The united oman . 2,970 reads.

  3. 3

    Capitalist Paradise

    MetaReference by The united oman . 1,142 reads.

  4. 1

    Capitalist Paradise's Zombie Protection Guidelines

    MetaReference by Octal . 112 reads.

  5. 2,241

    NationStates Guide

    MetaReference by Amerion . 94,382 reads.

▼ 2 More

Embassies: the Rejected Realms, The Genesis Corporation, NationStates, Libertatem, Equinox, Conservative League, Commonwealth of Liberty, The Confederacy of Free Nations, Union of Free Nations, 10000 Islands, Lands End, Zentari, The Allied States, Enadia, Lezra, United League of Nations, and 8 others.Barbaria, The Allied Republic, Official European Union, Republic of Conservative Nations, Japan, Seora, Golden Eco Friendly, and The Glorious Evolution.

Tags: Capitalist, Democratic, Enormous, Featured, Free Trade, Independent, Industrial, Map, National Sovereigntist, Neutral, Offsite Chat, Offsite Forums, and 3 others.Post-Modern Tech, Regional Government, and Role Player.

Regional Power: Very High

Capitalist Paradise contains 250 nations, the 84th most in the world.

Today's World Census Report

The Greatest Rich-Poor Divides in Capitalist Paradise

Nations ranked highly have large gaps between the incomes of rich and poor citizens. Nations low on the list have high levels of income equality.

As a region, Capitalist Paradise is ranked 1,430th in the world for Greatest Rich-Poor Divides.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The County of OrlogtunCorporate Police State“Never trust a man in polished boots.”
2.The Production Facilities of IndustriaCapitalizt“Industria”
3.The Jingoistic States of Uxorem meamAnarchy“Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur”
4.The Voluntary Meritocracy of AnchillasAnarchy“Freedom For The People”
5.The Irrelevant Internet Browser of Internet ExplorerCapitalist Paradise“Just try getting rid of us! ”
6.The Free Land of New Vic Messia EisopiaAnarchy“Strength Through Freedom”
7.The Corporate Empire of Mon GoogCapitalist Paradise“Greed is Good”
8.The Free Land of FakeandlandAnarchy“For Freedom, For Liberty, For Kava”
9.The Corporate Ran Police State of NGRACorporate Police State“buy something or leave”
10.The Borderlands of TurkuseAnarchy“Foo bar”
1234. . .2425»

Regional Happenings

More...

Capitalist Paradise Regional Message Board

Gelth Confederacy wrote:That's patently false. The reason why Hydroxychloroquine was rejected as a treatment for COVID is due to the fact that it is significantly cheaper than other drugs being propped up by the pharmaceutical industry.

No, that's patently true. No proper clinical study showed any benefit from Hydroxychloroquine. It was rejected because it does not work (while having serious side effects). You just assert falsehoods without showing any clinical studies to support them.

Gulf Oil wrote:The Federal Government is suppose to have limited power. The advocates for unlimited central government usually cite two portions of the Document to circumvent the Bill of Rights.
  • First is the commerce clause, by considering any human activity to be “commerce” and subject to Federal control. This is incorrect since the commerce clause was amended by the restrictions imposed by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was not amended by the commerce clause.

  • The second part of the constitution favored by advocates for a powerful central government is the Fourteenth Amendment. That amendment guarantees equal protection under the laws. Under this method Congress has power to meddle in such areas as healthcare to ensure that all care is equally inferior, and no one benefits from being rich. The problem is that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the American civil war to expand personal Liberty and Freedom, not to impose limitations on it.

The regulation of the practice of medicine is simply not a Federal power.

No, it's an absurd lie that the federal government is supposed to have limited power. The very existence of the Constitution disproves that lie. I.e. if the government was indeed supposed to have limited power, there would be no Constitution. We already had Articles of Confederation. Under which states had most power and the central government had limited power. But very soon it became clear that it was not a viable arrangement, and that's why the Constitution was adopted. If you wanted to describe in one sentence what the Constitution accomplished it would be something like "a massive transfer of power from states to the newly created strong federal government" - not "limited the federal government". You have to look not at some abstracts turns of phrase in the document, but at how it changed the status quo. You know, a new law setting a 50% tax rate can be a draconian tax increase (from 10%) - or it can be a dramatic tax cut (from 90%). It all depends on what it was before. Very often when Libertarians talk about the Constitution they basically pretend that we still have Articles of Confederation. But in reality the original text of the Constitution had virtually no limits on the federal government power (except for a ban on ex post facto laws, bills of attainder etc.). Some states were actually concerned that there were no limits on the government infringing on freedoms and insisted on adding a Bill of Rights. Still, not many limits were added. And then in 1819 the SCOTUS confirmed (in McCulloch v. Maryland) that contrary to what libertarians claim even now, Article I, Section 8 does not actually limit the federal government to those powers explicitly listed therein.

Gelth Confederacy wrote:It's my choice to either get it or not to get it. End of discussion.

Of course you do. Even though the vaccine it's self is not nearly as effective as the State says it is.

The same "empirical data" the CDC lied about regarding hospitalizations, and deaths? No, thanks.

Yes, it's your choice as long as you don't go out in public. Just as it's your choice to drink or not as long as you don't drive on public roads.

And yes, vaccines are effective and have already saved over a million Americans.

Informed Consent wrote:We are dealing with people whose bread and butter is the deliberate misinterpretation and misapplication of constitutional law.
Using the 14th as an example, progressives have used it to justify anchor babies despite the fact that the senator who authored the amendment specifically stated in his dissertation that was not the intention.
Government never gives back any authority it accrues by hook or crook, and it is not a question of if, but when that authority is abused.
Not a problem.
Concerned citizens are free to mitigate as they see fit rendering any perceived danger from others moot.

OK, fine. Then as a concerned citizen I claim the right to mitigate the danger from you by shooting you if you come within 50 feet of me.

Do you realize that everything you say about vaccination also applies to drunk driving?! By your own argument you should be free to decide whether or not to put alcohol inside your body before driving, and concerned citizens are free to mitigate as they see fit rendering any perceived danger from you moot.

BTW there's also other way in which you danger others if you unvaccinated. You are much likelier to end up in a hospital, and American hospitals were already overwhelmed in Delta and Omicron waves, resulting in deaths of many people from other causes. Also, for many people Covid is a chronic disease, and I don't want to pay for your treatment for the rest of your life. Somehow I doubt that if you get chronic Covid, you'll follow your professed beliefs and pay for everything out of pocket.

Midlands wrote:No, it's an absurd lie that the federal government is supposed to have limited power. The very existence of the Constitution disproves that lie. I.e. if the government was indeed supposed to have limited power, there would be no Constitution. We already had Articles of Confederation. Under which states had most power and the central government had limited power. But very soon it became clear that it was not a viable arrangement, and that's why the Constitution was adopted. If you wanted to describe in one sentence what the Constitution accomplished it would be something like "a massive transfer of power from states to the newly created strong federal government" - not "limited the federal government". You have to look not at some abstracts turns of phrase in the document, but at how it changed the status quo. You know, a new law setting a 50% tax rate can be a draconian tax increase (from 10%) - or it can be a dramatic tax cut (from 90%). It all depends on what it was before. Very often when Libertarians talk about the Constitution they basically pretend that we still have Articles of Confederation. But in reality the original text of the Constitution had virtually no limits on the federal government power (except for a ban on ex post facto laws, bills of attainder etc.). Some states were actually concerned that there were no limits on the government infringing on freedoms and insisted on adding a Bill of Rights. Still, not many limits were added. And then in 1819 the SCOTUS confirmed (in McCulloch v. Maryland) that contrary to what libertarians claim even now, Article I, Section 8 does not actually limit the federal government to those powers explicitly listed therein.

1819…then vs now.

Then:
Very rarely did the federal government overstep their bounds
Most power was within the states, as long as constitutional provisions were followed
Congress could conduct enough to satisfy the problems the articles created

Now:
Congress can simply use outdated antiques to suppress states rights, for example marijuana legalization
Congress can misuses “necessary and proper” or the commerce clause to, out of nowhere, create new areas they can legislate
Power has mostly became centralized over the past century
States are much more limited in how they conduct themselves
When the court is of a certain political leaning it takes an activist stance that was unheard of then

When will it stop? How far will it go? As power has shifted towards the feds on things it never did 200 years ago we have seen America slowly become a centralized government. Sometimes for good (civil rights) and sometimes for worse (roe v. wade). My interpretation of our constitution is, in matters of federal power, the power of the feds should be limited to what is in the constitution or any law or action that is necessary for our continued survival (war, tax, etc). The various power clauses need to be construed as strictly as possible, or we run the risk of them becoming further misused and misinterpreted, then what good is the constitution since it basically is ignored as a “damn document that gets in the way”, leading us into a totalitarian dystopian America.

Dennock wrote:1819…then vs now.

Then:
Very rarely did the federal government overstep their bounds
Most power was within the states, as long as constitutional provisions were followed
Congress could conduct enough to satisfy the problems the articles created

Now:
Congress can simply use outdated antiques to suppress states rights, for example marijuana legalization
Congress can misuses “necessary and proper” or the commerce clause to, out of nowhere, create new areas they can legislate
Power has mostly became centralized over the past century
States are much more limited in how they conduct themselves
When the court is of a certain political leaning it takes an activist stance that was unheard of then

When will it stop? How far will it go? As power has shifted towards the feds on things it never did 200 years ago we have seen America slowly become a centralized government. Sometimes for good (civil rights) and sometimes for worse (roe v. wade). My interpretation of our constitution is, in matters of federal power, the power of the feds should be limited to what is in the constitution or any law or action that is necessary for our continued survival (war, tax, etc). The various power clauses need to be construed as strictly as possible, or we run the risk of them becoming further misused and misinterpreted, then what good is the constitution since it basically is ignored as a “damn document that gets in the way”, leading us into a totalitarian dystopian America.

Yes, we are becoming more centralized because the world is becoming more complex and interconnected, requiring more done by the government in general and more of it done by the central government. We can't possibly know how far it will go. We can no more imagine the world in the middle of the 23rd century than the Constitution framers were able to imagine ours (just one bit: back then the 10 biggest American towns and villages - there were no cities - had the combined population about the same as modern Peoria).

Midlands wrote:OK, fine. Then as a concerned citizen I claim the right to mitigate the danger from you by shooting you if you come within 50 feet of me.

Do you realize that everything you say about vaccination also applies to drunk driving?! By your own argument you should be free to decide whether or not to put alcohol inside your body before driving, and concerned citizens are free to mitigate as they see fit rendering any perceived danger from you moot.

BTW there's also other way in which you danger others if you unvaccinated. You are much likelier to end up in a hospital, and American hospitals were already overwhelmed in Delta and Omicron waves, resulting in deaths of many people from other causes. Also, for many people Covid is a chronic disease, and I don't want to pay for your treatment for the rest of your life. Somehow I doubt that if you get chronic Covid, you'll follow your professed beliefs and pay for everything out of pocket.

So riddle me this.
Let us say that masking, distancing, and vaccination are as effective as advertised by health officials, and I am masked, jabbed, and boosted, but you are not.
How would you present a threat to me?

Informed Consent wrote:So riddle me this.
Let us say that masking, distancing, and vaccination are as effective as advertised by health officials, and I am masked, jabbed, and boosted, but you are not.
How would you present a threat to me?

Because no protection is perfect (and each one listed by you is actually far from perfect). So the danger also depends on the level of your exposure. If I don't mask, I increase your exposure. If I'm not vaccinated - along with many other people - I increase the overall infection level, and that increases your exposure too (not even necessarily from me).

The whole point is that epidemics (just like wars) are collective problems, and therefore public health is a collective solution. And that's part of the reason why any heavily individualistic ideology is as utopian and evil as Communism.

Midlands wrote:You just assert falsehoods without showing any clinical studies to support them.

Bruh. I return after a 2-week break and this is the very fist thing I see upon it.

A fresh gust of hypocrisy in my face.🍃

Since when did you care about credibility when showing none if it yourself?

We live in a stranger world
by the second, it seems.

Dennock wrote: The various power clauses need to be construed as strictly as possible, or we run the risk of them becoming further misused and misinterpreted, then what good is the constitution since it basically is ignored as a “damn document that gets in the way”, leading us into a totalitarian dystopian America.

I was on board until I read this part, and then I started thinking to myself:

Here's the classic catch in the communist gambit of riling up people's emotions to "convince" them.

A true marxist, you are; you should be proud!

1. Propose limiting the corrupt government that opresses us
2. Switch to the call-at-arms of
installing a large government replacing
the elites with a new type of elites.

History repeats itself.

Forum View

Advertisement