NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Esteemed Members! I request your approval of my following proposald for the betterment of all of our nations!

Proposal:

Abolish Liberalism

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability Strength: Strong Proposed by: Hilton I
Description: It is clear upon review of political systems that liberalism has always been at the heart of the down fall of nations. I therefore propose that liberalism as a political movement and philosophy by completely abolished and prohibited in member nations.

All nations shall adhere to right wing conservative political thought. All nations shall establish a Department of Political Mandate to enforce this policy on it's citizenry.

You are an idiot.

Go give me 5 examples where liberals killed a nation.

This is a pathetic resolution....

Perhaps he's refering to the liberal ideals found at the heart of any revolution made to overthrow an oppressive government.

All nations shall adhere to right wing conservative political thought....

Just because you're a right wing conservative, you're always right?... Shut up. It's people like you who give conservatives a bad name. I'm not like you, and my region is called "Conservative Paradise..."

Die.

Hilton I, I pose a simple question to you- are you mentally retarded?

Liberalism does not kill nations, stupid proposals like yours kill nations. I could go into a long-winded explanation of why Liberalism should not be banned, but I think most people who read your proposal can realize the complete idiocy of it themselves without my explanation. But I would like you to answer the question I asked. If you are, I am sincerely sorry, but perhaps you shouldn't be playing such a sophisticated game. Stick to Candyland, moron!

This is a pathetic resolution....

It's probably meant as a joke, albeit a misplaced one.

I am amazed at the hostility of fellow member states. You are all supposed to be enlightened individuals. Lets all act that way please and cease the name calling.

In responce to the statement that liberalsim has not destroyed countries, I will point to a few historical examples:

1. The fall of Rome was directly related the liberal ideas that weakend the government.

2. The fall of Germany's post WWII economy and formation of catalists to causde WWII resulted from liberalist views and policies in the government.

3. The current US budget is in a shambles thanks mainly to liberal spending ideas and social programs.

Liberalism may be usfully defined, in our era, as an ideology based upon the enshrinement of change and open-mindedness about the revision of values. This redefinition has become necessary because of the dialectic between the Enlightenment idea of liberalism and its effects as applied from that time until the present day. Liberalism is founded upon the idea of the robust natural goodness of man, which implies that individual self-sufficiency is an enlightened way of organizing society, as centralised power is subject to corruption and domination by a few evil people; and consequently a constant danger to the free and many good.
The natural goodness of man is a problematic assumption. It is one thing to observe that men, individually or in the aggregate, are good or capable of good, and quite another to leap from that to man's possession of a nature that is good in itself. If this idea were true, it would not be possible for evil to arise, so the mere existence of evil disproves it. If a majority of men were good, evil people would only be able to hold power by concealing their evilness, and would constantly be subject to destruction as soon as the good people sussed them out. This is equally unsupported by the evidence. History teaches us that man's nature is evil, for we accept selfishness and cruelty as normal (if regrettable) even in the best man; we do not see even a great man and wonder that he has done serious wrongs. It would be the wonder if he had not.

In this light, liberalism seems a little shaky. I would like to refer back to my earlier definition and derive the following from it: as liberalism enshrines change, with the presumption that it is shaking the evil out of the essentially unsullied human nature, it is fundamentally opposed to conservatism, which needs no redefinition; conservatism is the belief in the validity of old-fashioned values. The only question is, which values? Who gets to decide?

As a rhetorical device this proposal may have some merits, but it seems to have fallen short on that path.

I was looking through the resolutions, with the intent to reply that the only governmental style the UN enjoys oppressing is tyranny, and found that tyranny, nor any other specific form of government is against UN resolution.

Save having one guy who goes around to everyones house, daily, and tells them what to do, but who has time for that anymore.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Are you crazy man? The UN want to make a democratical world and you want to have less political free in all country of the world... This is so stupids.

LIBERALISM IS A SIN I TELL YOU. SINNNNN!!!!! IF YOU'RE NOT A CATHOLIC CONSERVATIVE, YOU WILL GO TO HELLLLLL!!! AHHHHH!!!. IT'S TRUE, I WROTE IN CAPS SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/libissin.htm

So after we pass this resolution nations will change into such things as "Sandinavian Neocon Paradise" by action of the Compliance Ministry?

Nope, I can't feature that.

I am amazed at the hostility of fellow member states. You are all supposed to be enlightened individuals. Lets all act that way please and cease the name calling.

In responce to the statement that liberalsim has not destroyed countries, I will point to a few historical examples:

1. The fall of Rome was directly related the liberal ideas that weakend the government.

2. The fall of Germany's post WWII economy and formation of catalists to causde WWII resulted from liberalist views and policies in the government.

3. The current US budget is in a shambles thanks mainly to liberal spending ideas and social programs.


Umm... no.
Rome fell due to their corruption, their overuse of mercenaries as an army, no way to pay those mercenaries after they owned everything, and a few too many bottles of lead wine.

I'm not sure about Germany, but they are a very liberal nation today and have quite a strong economy.

And the budget is broken because Bush, the neocon poster child, has cut taxes and expanded the government horribly. Glad my lucky children get to pay that back.

You are a troll.

The United States is a liberal democracy. The United States is the most powerful nation in the world. Since you're the type who apparently thinks that isolated, non-conclusive examples can prove anything, the argument stops right there.

And I'm sure that the ONLY possible reason for Rome's collapse was the liberals. Sure. That was the only factor that changed at all in the entire world during the period of the Roman Empire, so it must be true, right?

Apparently you missed that bit about Italy being fascist, one of the Axis Powers, and supporting the slaughter of a few million people. Apparently you also missed that bit about Germany being a dictatorship -- certainly not a liberal view -- and that whole "Treaty of Versailles" thing.

The Democrats have broken the US budget with social programs? Look at the Republicans -- War on Drugs, mass inprisonment for victimless crimes, reconstruction of Iraq, tax cuts, the military in a fairly general sense. Uh-huh, the Democrats are the only ones spending any money at all, you're right.

I thought Rome collapsed because the Chrsitians took over... :idea:

Some of you people need to take a western civ course.

Rome fell 1400 years before liberalism was invented. Assuming of course, Rome ever fell. That's a debate for another time.

Rome reached its hight under the emperor Constantine, the First Christian Emperor.

Germany's economy was in shambles for a lot of reasons. High tarriffs, high debts, the general dislike of the Germans by the allied powers, the takeover of NAZIs certainly didn't help, and maybe the Great Depression that hit the world in 1930 might have something to do with it too.

Incidentally, Russia's monarchy had an economic depression and the Communists, not the Liberals, took over. The US and the UK had depressions with Liberal governments and there was no revolution.

And the US being a highly redistributive society (hazard of direct representation) will spend money on anything and everything that will play well in an election year: regardless of party or value.

All this arguing is fine, and since many other people are already hitting the main part for me, I will get right to the point.

If I want to be a Liberal, I will be a liberal because I can. I dont need some honky retarded conservative telling me what is good for me, which is ironic because that is what the liberals are supposed to do. :o

LIBERAL!! You are a hypocrit!

Here's how I would vote on this proposal:

No.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region

I am ex-UN, but i feel like providing a moderate veiw on things here. First off Rome fell do to it growing too large for itself to defend, not liberal ideas, hince why the barbarians it used to crush sacked it. Also, political freedoms have never caused a nation to fall that I know of, in fact the restricting of such freedoms causes the damage. This, quite simply, is a TERRIBLE proposal, and i imgine I wont have much agurement here from the looks of things.

I'm going to ignore the history here and point out one simple fact: assuming an even spread amongst all political alignments, one fifth of the world is liberal. Another fifth is libertarian, and it is unlikely that libertarians would be involved in the UN. Yet another fifth is Centrist, which tends to display some liberal tendencies. Therefore, if this resolution passes A FULL HALF of the UN will be considered rogue nations because of their political ideals. This seems to me like a conspiracy, or perhaps just an attempt at one.

Die.
I agree. I'm not even going to attempt to argue because most of it has been covered already. But I would like to say that despite what many of you think, Rome did not fall for any one reason in particular.

It's people like you that give PEOPLE a bad name.

Eric, you're my new best friend! Just be careful with your blanket statements; if I wasn't reading carefully I might have thought you meant to include me in that.

you need to be specific and define liberalism because that is a very broad term.

In responce to the statement that liberalsim has not destroyed countries, I will point to a few historical examples:

1. The fall of Rome was directly related the liberal ideas that weakend the government.

2. The fall of Germany's post WWII economy and formation of catalists to causde WWII resulted from liberalist views and policies in the government.

3. The current US budget is in a shambles thanks mainly to liberal spending ideas and social programs.


The fall of Rome was how long ago?

The fall of Germany's post WWII economy was directly related to extreme liberalism.

As far as the budget is concerned, I will admit that I am fiscally conservative, but a lot of the budget problems have to do with the man in office(i.e. a maxed out defense budget because of a war that we went into because of fabricated reasons).

time matters not History repeats itself, and america has extreme liberals, ohh and if i am correct the economy has gone up since the war. which i am in fact just to day we hit the 10 mark

ohh and you cant so much abolish liberalism as make some of their thinking outlawed. like baby killing (aka abortion)!

ohh and you cant so much abolish liberalism as make some of their thinking outlawed. like baby killing (aka abortion)!

When you threaten to outlaw thinking you tread very dangerous waters, my friend.

ohh and you cant so much abolish liberalism as make some of their thinking outlawed. like baby killing (aka abortion)!

When you threaten to outlaw thinking you tread very dangerous waters, my friend.

well not thinking but put it in the constitution to make some of their ideas illegal there. i misworded myself sorry. liberls can then yell all they want but not get anywhere, because it will be unconstitutuional

So you'll be persecuting the liberals then? Will you stop at supressing their ideas, or will you go the path of the Romans and the Christians and use them as cannon fodder for your entertainment?

thats a load of bull man. and the people who may have done that did not represent the church. and no i never said anytning about persecuting, i said that they can do whatever they want but they it will impossible to make anything immoral a law.

Firstly: in my example, the Christians were the ones being persecuted.
Secondly: Whose morals are we going off of? We've already shown that yours and mine are almost complete opposites, and no two people have the exact same moral code. How are you going to make this work?

Firstly: in my example, the Christians were the ones being persecuted.
Secondly: Whose morals are we going off of? We've already shown that yours and mine are almost complete opposites, and no two people have the exact same moral code. How are you going to make this work?

how about be go with a standered of morals that was around since he begging of time. since man became "enlightened".

how about be go with a standered of morals that was around since he begging of time. since man became "enlightened".

Two different times there, my friend. Unless you also denounce Darwin and the theory of evolution.

how about be go with a standered of morals that was around since he begging of time. since man became "enlightened".

Two different times there, my friend. Unless you also denounce Darwin and the theory of evolution.

Evolution says that man sprang from apes. Unfortunately, liberals didnt spring very far.

Liberals believe that everyone should have freedom to do or say whatever you feel...unless you dont agree with thier way of thinking.

Liberals believe that no one should own firearms. If someone breaks into your home you should just be a good little automaton and let them steal you blind, rape any member of your family they want to, and hopefully they wont murder you and your family on their way out.

Im just glad that I live in a state that allows you to defend yourself. If someone is breaking into your home, you dont have to wait until they get inside to put a bullet through their head.

Well then, I guess that political quiz I took placed me incorrectly, because it said I was liberal, but there's no way I'm the type of compliant moron you make liberals out to be. Sure, I think there should be restrictions on guns, but honestly, who in their right minds would "be a good little automaton and let them steal you blind, rape any member of your family they want to, and hopefully they wont murder you and your family on their way out," as you put it?

And as for the free speech thing, people should not be allowed to "do or say whatever you feel;" that's why we have the classic example of yelling "Fire" in a theater. Your rights end where they start infringing on someone else's rights.

Finally, if you're going to insult me, you might as well do it with some sort of style. Calling me an ape hardly seems a worthwhile insult, especially since most liberals are idealized students and/or the idealized educated class. Next time, you might try something like "egghead" or "nerd."

In my opinion, the persecution of ideas is a demand for no progress. I haven't taken any political tests to determine whether I'm liberal or conservative or communist or whatever, but I do know a bigot when I see one. In American political history, the Federalist party has been classified as conservative by some, an ancestor of America's modern Republican party. The head spokesman for the party, Alexander Hamilton, rigged the elections so that his party could win. Hamilton even gained enough support to head his own army to deal with political dissent, i.e. Jeffersonian Republicans (today's Democrats). Long story short, the Federalist party died out due to lack of internal organization and loss of popularity. Now, a Republican is in office, and we're being screwed up the wazoo with failed foreign policy, a disastrous economy, farsical leadership, and decreased international prestige, to name a few highlights. And the fault isn't that of liberals. Bigot.

While it is true, that the current Liberal View, is killing the entire world, it would be against the very basic of human rights to deny them the right to free speech. Take action, when Liberals attempt to conquor your Country by their lies, and deceptions. But do not punish those who have certain views you yourself do not have.

While the current form of Liberalism is clearly communist, and invisioning a World Takeover, the Tsalagi does not support any action to restrict free speech of Liberals, or Conservitives, or Moderates. However, action may be taken should they break the Laws of your Country in an attempt to conquor it. The Tsalagi support enforcement of those laws, as so long they may voice their opinion.

Tawodi
Principle Chief of the Tsalagi

Sounds good to me. We should ban communism as well!

Forgive my words, as they are not as educated as some here, and may be considered out of place, as I am, not yet, of the UN.

I am confused by the term "Liberalism." The "liber" latin root seems to suggest "free" but the big government, socialist, actions seem to go against this impression.

Then again I may be confusing it with Libertarianism, which is, I belive, the lassez-faire policy with which I govern (or rather, don't) my citizens daily lives.

Oppresion of the lower and middle-lower class. That's the answer to all of life's problems.

considerin as how the aggressiveness of gratuitous conventionality is demonstratably the most harmful and destructive force in all of existence; wouldn't it make more sense to ban pseudo-conservatism?

while it may be possible that no liberal has ever liberated anything it is almost a virtual certainty that no conservative has ever conserved anything either!

=^^=
.../\...

OOC: Actually, I consider myself a Conservative. And I conserve money, freedoms, friends, family, US Constitution, etc. :D I'm sure Liberals have also Liberated some things. And while it may not be Liberating Oppressed People, I suppose it can count.

If you support the US Constitution in the view of the neocons like Bush and Ashcroft, you are standing with the enemy.
I read political boards and chats..a lot of the right-wingers don't care if you lose freedoms under the USA Patriot Act and are against the idea of the judiciary studying the constituionality of the agreement.
I also see a lot of people who favor conservative thought as it justifies their prejudices (i.e. Bush supports all white Christians...read on a bulletin board :shock: )
*shakes head sadly*

Speaking of Bush and Christianity, I feel it is necessary to use this quote:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
- Mahatma Gandhi

A worthy quote indeed.

There is another, although, I am ashamed to say, I do not recall who said it.

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.

I leave it without quotations, as I am unsure of it's total accuracy.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759


Essential is the operative word there.

I figured to get rid of all the liberals in my country, I would just randomly shoot every third person in the head and call them a liberal and state all liberals would die. Then I would shoot anyone who muttered about it and probably their families. Then I would wait a year and THEN waste another load of people. Yes! No more liberals.. no more country. Damn. Nothing to tax.

I say abolish conservatism a.k.a Big Brotherism, though it would be a complete hipocracy of what liberlism stands for, we could nudge em into the ditch whistling out of the crime scene.

If that dont go well, we must seperate the world so conservatives can be in conservative land and liberals can be in liberal land. As conservatives basque in their puritan world of god, we'll basque in prostitudes, freedom, and fun. I wonder where I d wanna go. Hey in the end conservatives and liberals ain't that different, we advertise the adultery while conservatives only show it. (Don't worry, I worked on a conservative campaign, they all got drunk, and the politician was making out in front of his drunk wife with another woman, we ain't that different, get it got it good)