Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'libertarianism'.
Revolution requires Revolutionary Theory and Circumstance "We are in the trenches. A great battle is raging to which we can all, in some capacity, play a part. Our most recent conflicts have been with us spearheading the assault against those that have wronged us or our allies. In this instance, we are the targets. Not since the July Revolution have we been subject to an existential defensive war. And for that, we must take heart." - Edward Graceford, during the First War on Terror PART ONE: BACKGROUND In the early years of this world, while Ivan Moldavi won the leadership contest in the New Pacific Order (NPO), it was Vladimir who carried with him the ideology of the August Revolution. His essay, the Meaning of Freedom, laid out for the first time a comprehensive material analysis of Cybernations. He postulated that all nations have a fundamental self-interest derived from their existence, and that this self-interest, when fulfilled, would move the nation forward in social, cultural, and economic development. Perhaps the greatest threat to forward progress has been from nations that do not act according to self-interest. In 2010 as a member of the NPO, I wrote Return of the Lulz, I pondered the return of Lulzists on the global scale and the decaying effect this had on global politics. Vladimir also briefly addressed the decline of political self-interest in two essays titled The Existential Threat. But wasn't it in the self-interest of Mushroom Kingdom and others to suppress the growth of NPO? It was certainly so for the political leadership, but in the end NPO prevailed because of their focus on material analysis. Pacifica's adversaries simply didn't have the ideological focus to compete long-term, and typically wasted resources on frivolous military expeditions. In essence they became purely reactionary forces, driven by fear of NPO resurgence. Pacifica's status as number one alliance today is something every alliance leader should be studying, not only from the perspective of ambition but also survival. We cannot merely react to the situation, we must align ourselves with the ongoing march of history. Battle of Junkagrad, Spring 2016 PART TWO: THE BROWN TEAM Around the same time as the Great July Producerist Revolution in Supernova X, the Libertarian Party of Cybernations (LPCN) was founded by Methrage aka Sephiroth as a means of protecting a loose band of rogues from sanctions that occurred on other teams. While in principle much of the LPCN was a good idea, as the Non Aggression Principle is usually conducive to forward development; in practice the movement lacked any focus on material analysis. If we accept Vladimir's premise that all nations have an inherent material self-interest, then we must deduce that rogue activity is antithetical to civilized development. The destruction caused by Methrage's errant ideology is almost legend today. The Imperium alone fought three wars in defense against his version of the LPCN, and this is not counting other wars involving GATO, Kashmir, and many other alliances. Some of these wars had to do with sanction wars in defense of rogues like Thorgrum, who Sephiroth protected as part of his grudge against Kashmir. Other wars, such as the First War on Terror, began with insane declarations of sovereignty over the Imperium, when he demanded he replace me as leader. Ironically, in the end, I was chosen to replace Sephiroth as Supreme Triumvir of the LPCN. The Victory of the Imperium against irrationality on the micro-political stage mirrored that of Pacifica in macro-politics, shedding light on the validity of Vladimir's earlier analysis. The Libertarian Party of Cybernations is currently discussing this analysis and reforming in the direction of national self-interest, rejecting roguery and emphasizing deterrence and non-aggression. PART THREE: THE WAY FORWARD Several aspects of the modern LPCN should be appealing to small and mid-sized alliances seeking mutual defense while remaining independent from macro-political wars: ODOAP confederation: The LPCN serves as an ODoAP confederation, in which member alliances are able to support each other against rogues and other threats. LPCN alliances are not expected to fight on behalf of other signatories if they feel unable to meaningfully contribute towards a strategic victory. There is no risk of being dragged unwillingly into complicated macro-political conflicts. Coordinated Brown Team voting: The LPCN triumvirate coordinates on senate voting with the objective of electing multiple brown team senators. These senators then coordinate to implement positive economic proposals, while protecting against aggressive sanction wars. Political Stability: The triumvirate is currently composed of Immortan Junka, Rukunu, and Sigrun Vapneir. New triumvirs are selected either by a 2/3 vote or via nomination by a resigning triumvir. This creates a stable bloc environment without sudden radical political changes. Diplomatic Strategy: The LPCN seeks to have individual military treaties across the entire spectrum of the treaty web. This frustrates and complicates the aggressive intentions of potential attackers. It also allows members of the LPCN to chain into macro-political conflicts if it is seen as being necessary to the security of LPCN signatories. But our main goal is to establish long term stability for growth and prosperity. The Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle is a fundamental value of the LPCN. Signatories are asked to not engage in aggressive wars against major alliances without a concrete Casus Belli or treaty activation. In the case of a global conflict, we urge signatories to consider the validity of the original Casus Belli that triggered the war. It is suggested that signatories pursue ODoAPs and MnDoAPs to avoid getting chained into bad wars.
Nations of Anarchy Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.There are many philosophical differences among anarchists concerning questions of ideology, values, and strategy. Ideas about how anarchist societies should work vary considerably, especially with respect to economics. There are also disagreements about how such a society might be brought about, with some anarchists being committed to a strategy of nonviolence, while others advocate armed struggle. Anarcho-capitalism vs Minarchism Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism are two distinct strains of libertarianism. Although anarcho-capitalists and minarchists agree on most political issues, they are sometimes hostile towards each other, particularly because most adherents of both philosophies support the non-aggression principle (NAP) and see the opposing philosophy as misrepresenting its political implications. Minarchists believe that it is the responsibility of the state to enforce NAP, while anarcho-capitalists see the state as a violation of NAP, and believe that all valuable services – including law and defense – are best provided in the marketplace. Agorism & Counter-Economics The goal of agorism is the agora. The society of the open marketplace as near to untainted by theft, assault, and fraud as can be humanly attained is as close to a free society as can be achieved. And a free society is the only one in which each and every one of us can satisfy his or her subjective values without crushing others’ values by violence and coercion. The concept of counter-economics is the most critical element of Agorism. It can be described as: The Counter-Economy is the sum of all non-aggressive Human Action which is forbidden by the State. Counter-economics is the study of the Counter-Economy and its practices. The Counter-Economy includes the free market, the Black Market, the “underground economy,” all acts of civil and social disobedience, all acts of forbidden association (sexual, racial, cross-religious), and anything else the State, at any place or time, chooses to prohibit, control, regulate, tax, or tariff. The Counter-Economy excludes all State-approved action (the “White Market”) and the Red Market (violence and theft not approved by the State). Libertarian socialists are anti-capitalist, and can thus be distinguished from right-wing libertarians. Whereas capitalist (and right-libertarian) principles concentrate economic power in the hands of those who own the most capital, libertarian socialism aims to distribute power more widely amongst members of society. A key difference between libertarian socialism and capitalist libertarianism is that advocates of the former generally believe that one's degree of freedom is affected by one's economic and social status, whereas advocates of the latter focus on freedom of choice within a capitalist framework. This is sometimes characterized as a desire to maximize "free creativity" in a society in preference to "free enterprise." Crypto-anarchism is a cyber-spatial realization of anarchism. Crypto-anarchists employ cryptographic software to evade prosecution and harassment while sending and receiving information over computer networks, in an effort to protect their privacy and political freedom. By using cryptographic software, the association between the identity of a certain user or organization and the pseudonym they use is made difficult to find, unless the user reveals the association. It is difficult to say which country's laws will be ignored, as even the location of a certain participant is unknown. However, participants may in theory voluntarily create new laws using smart contracts or, if the user is pseudonymous, depend on online reputation. Infoanarchism is an umbrella term for various groups of people who are opposed to forms of intellectual property, such as copyright and patents, and censorship in general. The term was coined in a TIME Magazine article called "The Infoanarchist" in July 2000. The article was about Ian Clarke, known as the original designer and lead developer of Freenet. The anti-copyright movement includes a wide range of groups and views. Infoanarchists have emerged as part of the broader copyright social conflict and copyright debate. While crypto-anarchism is focused on confidential, untraceable communication between individuals, the term Infoanarchism focuses more on the public anonymous availability of informational resources. Christian libertarianism describes the synthesis of Christian beliefs concerning free will, human nature, and God-given inalienable rights with libertarian political philosophy. It is also an ideology to the extent its supporters promote their cause to others and join together as a movement. In contrast to the Christian left and the Christian right respectively, they believe that charity and enforcement of personal-level morality should be the purview of the (voluntary) church and not the state. The use of force is never justified to achieve purely political, social, or religious goals, but is reserved solely to uphold natural rights. Individual freedom of religion without state interference is absolutely supported regardless of one's beliefs. Nevertheless, a majority religion in a given locale could display its faith on government-owned property if it had the popular votes to do so. Public sector discrimination is strictly forbidden, while in the private sector, it is permitted, though discouraged. Christian libertarians believe these principles are supported by the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, which are recorded in the Bible, and His criticism of the laws (Halakha) observed by the Pharisees. He opposed the Pharisees due to their self-righteous, man-made regulations added to God's law, which they obeyed outwardly, but with the wrong inward motivation. Also, most Christians believe the ceremonial and civic laws found in the Old Testament have been superseded by the New Covenant. For these reasons, Christian libertarians may consider Jesus as the greatest libertarian in history. Non-Aggression Principle The non-aggression principle (or NAP, also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The NAP is considered to be a defining principle of libertarianism, despite what minor differences of opinion some have regarding specific topics. Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale. The word "panarchy" was invented and the concept proposed by a Belgian political economist, Paul Émile de Puydt, in an article called "Panarchy" published in 1860. The word "panarchy" has since taken on additional, separate meanings, with the word "panarchism" referring to the original definition by de Puydt. De Puydt, a proponent of laissez-faire economics, wrote that "governmental competition" would allow "as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever be invented" to exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented. As David M. Hart writes: "Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members." Panarchism has been embraced by some anarcho-capitalists and libertarian socialists, including some of those promoting secession from existing states and those advocating creation of new micronations. Max Nettlau in the early 1900s and John Zube in the latter part of the century wrote extensively on the concept Libertarians and Anarchists have more in common than we do different; we all just want to be free. Also we can be, we all have a god given rights to exercise our freedoms. Anyone who infringes upon those to try forcing you into something are in the wrong and should be overpowered. Together all the Libertarians, Anarchists, Minarchists, Christians, Outlaws & Rebels Against Tyranny have unlimited reach and can never be beaten, Only divided can the Tyrants have any success against us. We also welcome the The Three Percenters, who have many Libertarians and Anarchists in their ranks among among us, as well as the !%er Outlaws with their Anarchist Leanings. The Three Percenters (also styled "3%ers", "III%ers"; also "3 Percenters Club", "3 Percenters Movement") is a self-described patriot movement which pledges resistance against the United States government regarding any restriction of the United States Constitution. Outlaw Bikers Media and misconception is mostly to blame for blowing things out of proportion in relation to bikers in general and 1%ers as well. Just like any group of diverse individuals there will be criminal elements and bad apples, but they should not be representative of the whole. It seems to me that 1%ers are no different than the Minutemen of old or any other group of devout Liberty following individuals that ultimately wish to be left alone to do as they please. But they are not scared to confront any group of individuals however big and strong to secure their natural right to dress act and ride as they wish. They truly do encompass the idea "Don't Tread On Me." Originally the term was born out of a Press Release from the American Motorcycle Association that said "99% of Motorcyclists are law-abiding citizens." This implied the other 1% were outlaws and many motorcycle clubs were this as a badge of honor. I realize the vast differences among any of the groups of people I've brought attention to, but something they all have in common is mistrust of government and knowing to avoid the State; if you want to remain free. Our Enemy, the State is the best-known book by libertarian author Albert Jay Nock, serving as a fundamental influence for the modern libertarian and American conservatism movements. Initially presented as a series of lectures at Bard College, it was published in 1935, and attempts to analyze the origins of American freedom, as well as questioning the nature and legitimacy of authoritarian government. Nock differentiates between that, which he refers to as "the State" (as described by Franz Oppenheimer in his book The State) and legitimate government, including governing oneself or consensual delegation of decision-making to leaders one selects. Nock is not attacking government, per se, but "The State", authority that violates society itself, claiming to rule in the people's name but taking power away from the community. In his opening paragraphs, he states that the expansion of the state comes at the expense of social power, shrinking the role of community. Denying that the two are the same, he points out the historic origin of authoritarian government through conquering warlords and robber barons. This reflects the influence of Franz Oppenheimer on Nock, a key proponent of the conquest theory of the state. “ All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power...The positive testimony of history is that the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation. No primitive State known to history originated in any other manner. ” Nock argues, further, that the Articles of Confederation that preceded the US Constitution were actually superior to it, that the reasons given for its replacement were excuses by land speculators and creditors looking to enrich themselves. While he did laud the Founders for establishing a legitimate government, as opposed to state, that was intended to protect natural rights . The state, according to Nock, "turns every contingency into a resource for accumulating power in itself, always at the expense of social power". People become conditioned to accept their lost freedom and social power as normal, in each subsequent generation, and so the State continues to expand, and society to shrink. We the LPC understanding the problems with governments and those who try to control people using their positions in them, will do everything we can to protect Libertarianism. Those who subscribe to a different version of Libertarianism are welcome to join and we can debate which approach is best in maximizing freedom. A new era of prosperity for the LPC has arrived, true unity. Nations of Anarchy Government President: Anarch Vice President: ericsw LPC Triumvirate: Anarch, Sigrun Vapneir & Immortan Junka Sir Kindle has stepped aside to allow me to assist in making sure the LPC climbs to greater heights than ever before. I appreciate his service. o7 Sir Kindle
[center][img]http://i47.tinypic.com/2r5t5hj.png[/img][/center] [center][font=times new roman,times,serif][b][size=7]The Voluntary Standard[/size][/b][/font][/center] [center][size=5][b]Providing news, information and commentary on the struggle for a voluntary society in Tyria, and abroad.[/b][/size][/center]