NationStates Jolt Archive

Should have decent rights in both politics and civil rights as well as a fairly small government and tax. I'm looking for fellow libertarian/conservatives begin the list (i know one was made of anarchists) so now this.

I can't think of any country that wld particularily fit that definition..except maybe America, but only slightly

i thought you were giving away nations :(

i thought you were giving away nations :(

I did too at first :? I thought it was vipers thread for a second actually.

Belgium is quite free, but our taxes are quite high (50-something %)

i thought you were giving away nations :(

I did too at first :? I thought it was vipers thread for a second actually.

HEIL VIPER!

i thought you were giving away nations :(

I did too at first :? I thought it was vipers thread for a second actually.

HEIL VIPER!

Heil Colodia and hard-to-read text!

Iraq, Afghanistan...

i thought you were giving away nations :(

I did too at first :? I thought it was vipers thread for a second actually.

HEIL VIPER!

Heil Colodia and hard-to-read text!

N3V4R!

http://philopolis.cjb.net/img/angrycat.jpg

http://philopolis.cjb.net/img/angrycat.jpg

http://graphics.x10.com/images/x10_pk9rx.gif

Pets does not like cats

Should have decent rights in both politics and civil rights as well as a fairly small government and tax. I'm looking for fellow libertarian/conservatives begin the list (i know one was made of anarchists) so now this.

Costa Rica, when Movimiento Libertario win in 2006, 2010 at the lastest.

http://philopolis.cjb.net/img/angrycat.jpg

http://graphics.x10.com/images/x10_pk9rx.gif

Pets does not like cats

I SHALL SLAY THE FOUL BEAST!

Vatican City ;)

Let's see, I think Nauru, San Marino, Liechtenstein, and the Maldives could classify.

Conservative countries are not free.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Conservative countries are not free.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Uruguay has had a good reputation for political freedom for a while now.
I don't know about their taxes, though.

Iceland is very open and democratic. I don't think their taxes are too bad, if you discount the public utilities.

my list (does include countires im not praticualy fond of:
Ameirca (of course)
canda
mexico
ireland
UK
france
Belgium
spain
italy
poland
most of europe really
turkey
Israel
india
south africa
Tiawan
Japan
Austrilia
new zealend
im sure there are others but im not gonna list nemore

No nation anywhere is truly free.

well how about on NS I see a few anarchist showed up one of whom I like:vitania

you letila have soem well good civil rights but a corrupt political system? And uh your tax and big government not what I call freedom. I continue my strive to eliminate government and income tax while gaining and maintaing excellent freedoms

you letila have soem well good civil rights but a corrupt political system? And uh your tax and big government not what I call freedom. I continue my strive to eliminate government and income tax while gaining and maintaing excellent freedoms

eh, ns doesn't distinguish between a system where some rule others (government) and a system where no one rules anyone else and everyone has an equal say in collective decisions (anarchism). and it uses income tax to show any kind of community spending - we don't tax personal income in the anarchist federation of free soviets, we just redirect wealth from the various collectives into community projects and redistribute the rest.

Liberal.....SUPER LIBERAL! DA-DA-DA-DAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Switzerland.

1)Taxes are as low or even lower than United States.

2)Pot and prostitution legal. Penalties for hard drugs aren't harsh. Age of consent and drinking both lower than in U.S.

3)Gun ownership is legal and even less restricted than in U.S.

4)Non-imperialistic neutral government and money not wasted on foreign adventures.

5)Civilized with crime and robbery rate lower than in U.S. and England.

well how about on NS I see a few anarchist showed up one of whom I like:vitania

you letila have soem well good civil rights but a corrupt political system? And uh your tax and big government not what I call freedom. I continue my strive to eliminate government and income tax while gaining and maintaing excellent freedoms

"The United States of Josh Dollins is a huge, devout nation, renowned for its complete absence of social welfare."

*Ahem* From my point of view, a complete absence of social welfare is not what I would call freedom. I'm sure that if your nation were real, the starving and destitute would certainly not feel like they were free.

*Ahem* From my point of view, a complete absence of social welfare is not what I would call freedom.

If a group of people decided to live in a place where they keep what they own and have produced and choose to interact with each other as much as they want, would these people not be free because they have no social welfare?

Does not exist unless you want to want to live a lawless nation where idiots with guns run their little fiefdoms.

*Ahem* From my point of view, a complete absence of social welfare is not what I would call freedom.

If a group of people decided to live in a place where they keep what they own and have produced and choose to interact with each other as much as they want, would these people not be free because they have no social welfare?

Aye. But not in a capitalist system like his.

*Ahem* From my point of view, a complete absence of social welfare is not what I would call freedom.

If a group of people decided to live in a place where they keep what they own and have produced and choose to interact with each other as much as they want, would these people not be free because they have no social welfare?

Aye. But not in a capitalist system like his.

The freedom to steal from one group of people in order to give to another in the name of some cause is not freedom.

my list (does include countires im not praticualy fond of:
Ameirca (of course)
canda
mexico
ireland
UK
france
Belgium
spain
italy
poland
most of europe really
turkey
Israel
india
south africa
Tiawan
Japan
Austrilia
new zealend
im sure there are others but im not gonna list nemore

IT'S A-U-S-T-R-A-L-I-A!
And lots of the countries you mentioned is filled with corruption.

*Ahem* From my point of view, a complete absence of social welfare is not what I would call freedom.

If a group of people decided to live in a place where they keep what they own and have produced and choose to interact with each other as much as they want, would these people not be free because they have no social welfare?

Aye. But not in a capitalist system like his.

The freedom to steal from one group of people in order to give to another in the name of some cause is not freedom.

Neither is the freedom to steal from or exploit one group of people in order to hoard personal wealth and gain power.

*Ahem* From my point of view, a complete absence of social welfare is not what I would call freedom.

If a group of people decided to live in a place where they keep what they own and have produced and choose to interact with each other as much as they want, would these people not be free because they have no social welfare?

Aye. But not in a capitalist system like his.

The freedom to steal from one group of people in order to give to another in the name of some cause is not freedom.

Neither is the freedom to steal from or exploit one group of people in order to hoard personal wealth and gain power.

Cheers! [clinks beer mugs with Kanabia]
Would the poor worker who was laid off so the rich CEO could move the factory overseas for cheaper labor, who now has no money to buy food to feed his family or pay the rent consider himself free? No, of course not! Sure, in a country with no social welfare, he is free to vote as he chooses, but should not he and his family be free from starvation as well?

Hey guys, I think the person who started the post meant nations on this game. You know, like my nation is Deeloleo. I could be wrong, though.

*Ahem* From my point of view, a complete absence of social welfare is not what I would call freedom.

If a group of people decided to live in a place where they keep what they own and have produced and choose to interact with each other as much as they want, would these people not be free because they have no social welfare?

Aye. But not in a capitalist system like his.

The freedom to steal from one group of people in order to give to another in the name of some cause is not freedom.

Neither is the freedom to steal from or exploit one group of people in order to hoard personal wealth and gain power.

Cheers! [clinks beer mugs with Kanabia]
Would the poor worker who was laid off so the rich CEO could move the factory overseas for cheaper labor, who now has no money to buy food to feed his family or pay the rent consider himself free? No, of course not! Sure, in a country with no social welfare, he is free to vote as he chooses, but should not he and his family be free from starvation as well?

*Drinks beer*

Its what you call "Freedom from want" Vitania :)

:shock:

:shock:
:shock: yourself! lol

Muwahahaha!

My country is ultra-oppressive.

I certainly wouldn't want to live there, but you got to admit it would be fun to rule it.

Wealth and freedom have nothing to do with each other. 19th century Americans were poor but free (white males over 21, that is). 21st century Americans are rich but unfree. People who say poor people are not free are guilty of a confusion or more often deliberate corruption of language. Otherwise Robinson Crusoe was unfree even though there was nobody there to oppress him, unless the secret police were deliberately hiding coconuts up trees to make it difficult for him to eat them.

Freedom comes with responsibility. The responsibility of feeding yourself and finding accomodation falls on the individual. If you force someone else to feed and house you then how can they possibly be free?

Freedom and voting have nothing to do with each other either. The fact that Hitler aquired power via the democratic process didn't mean the Jews were free. Freedom is about having your rights respected which means nobody aggressing against your body or your property. It doesn't matter whether or not they won a popularity contest.

Also there are more effective and more moral ways to help the poor than govt welfare. The claim that the poor would starve without the welfare state is dangerously ill informed scare mongering.

*Ahem* From my point of view, a complete absence of social welfare is not what I would call freedom.

If a group of people decided to live in a place where they keep what they own and have produced and choose to interact with each other as much as they want, would these people not be free because they have no social welfare?

Aye. But not in a capitalist system like his.

The freedom to steal from one group of people in order to give to another in the name of some cause is not freedom.

Neither is the freedom to steal from or exploit one group of people in order to hoard personal wealth and gain power.

Cheers! [clinks beer mugs with Kanabia]
Would the poor worker who was laid off so the rich CEO could move the factory overseas for cheaper labor, who now has no money to buy food to feed his family or pay the rent consider himself free? No, of course not! Sure, in a country with no social welfare, he is free to vote as he chooses, but should not he and his family be free from starvation as well?
Should the even poorer worker overseas who has even less money to feed his family and pay the rent consider himself free if people are forcibly prevented from giving him a job? Here's the nature of compassion in a welfare state. To call giving someone a job stealing and exploitation is another dangerous pervertion of language.

you letila have soem well good civil rights but a corrupt political system? And uh your tax and big government not what I call freedom. I continue my strive to eliminate government and income tax while gaining and maintaing excellent freedoms

eh, ns doesn't distinguish between a system where some rule others (government) and a system where no one rules anyone else and everyone has an equal say in collective decisions (anarchism). and it uses income tax to show any kind of community spending - we don't tax personal income in the anarchist federation of free soviets, we just redirect wealth from the various collectives into community projects and redistribute the rest.
Defending any sort of communism on the grounds of freedom is utterly ridiculous. No freedom is possible while "the collective" can steal the product of your labour.

Defending any sort of communism on the grounds of freedom is utterly ridiculous. No freedom is possible while "the collective" can steal the product of your labour.

only if you don't know what freedom is. anarchism has the only non-contradictory definition of freedom i've come across.

a collective doesn't steal shit. a collective (that you are a part of and therefore have decision making power in) has control over the products of its collective labor. everyone involved has an equal say. if you don't want others to have a say, don't work with other people.

Wealth and freedom have nothing to do with each other. 19th century Americans were poor but free (white males over 21, that is). 21st century Americans are rich but unfree. People who say poor people are not free are guilty of a confusion or more often deliberate corruption of language. Otherwise Robinson Crusoe was unfree even though there was nobody there to oppress him, unless the secret police were deliberately hiding coconuts up trees to make it difficult for him to eat them.

robinson crusoe was free because he met the two conditions for freedom.
#1 - there was no one above him in a hierarchy ordering him around.
#2 - he had free access to the means to provide for himself; they were not locked up as somebody's private property.

wealth doesn't directly relate to freedom, but it does relate to class. and a class society is not a free society. under a capitalist system, or any other where people have to sell themselves to other people in order to survive, wealth grants a few people privilege and makes the rest unfree.

Why do you think big government is opposed to freedom?
big government is the best way to ensure freedom in my opinion (so long as it does actually ensure freedom). If you have a too small government, you have chaos, and chaos is tyrany of the strongest.