NationStates Jolt Archive

Being libertarian, I do my best to make individual and economical freedoms as high as possible. I do not, however, support political freedom, for some reasons. First, political freedom is generally a freedom of violence. All the meetings, demonstrations, various political agitation etc are just a violence against those who do not want to be involved. So-called 'freedom of political actions' has nothing to do with freedom of speech because fredom of speech itself is not about 'a right to be heared': everyone should be free to decide to what they wish to listen. Second, libertarianism is not the thing the majority of people want; actually, libertarianism is good for the middle class only, and both upper and lower classes are interested in something different.

Anyway, a so-called democracy is not about letting people rule the country on their own. Elections are just a different sports: the politicians compete in their abilities to lie to their electorate, and in the ability to feed the elections campaigns with money. In theory, elections should be won by the people who represent interests of most number of individuals, but in reality the elections are always won by those who have lots of money and are able to tell the public beautiful lies.

I even can't imagine libertarianism together with the democratic ruling model -- it's easier for me to imagine a libertarian monarchy.

So, I was glad when I reached the highest levels individual freedom, while kicked asses of those protestors and other politicians. As my economical freedom was average, my nation became 'Libertarian Police State' which was completely satisfying my wishes. However, as I've got nothing against economical freedom, after some steps my economy reached highest levels as well, and... well... my U.N. category became 'Benevolent Dictatorship'.:headbang:

I've got to say I completely disagree with this title, which is for unknown reasons selected for nations which have perfect individual and economical freedom, while getting rid of these dirty political games called 'democracy' (no, it's no democracy! it's the '-cracy' of dirty politicians, and that's all).

So, I'd ask the game masters to rename that category. I believe something like 'libertarian paradize' would better reflect what it is.

Thank you.

I sincerely hope Imroon shall never be known to the world as a 'libertarian paradise'...

Personally, I believe Benevolent Dictatorship quite fits the kind of nation. You admitted there is no democracy or political freedom, while citizens are allowed to lead their lives as they wish, and the economy flourishes. Isn't that exactly what is a benevolent dictatorship?

If you do not let your people have freedom to choose who they wish to govern them, you are a dictator. Simple as.

King Arthur the Great sides with Imroon. You have a Benevolent Dictatorship. You run the country, but in a way that allows everybody to lead joyous, happy lives free from worry that bad choices will cause their downfall, as you choose for them. Congrats, You are a DICTATOR!! You do not allow for elections, nor any real type of rule by majority, or even by consesnsus. Your will, and only your will, controls the country. That is Dictatorship.

Also, THIS THREAD BELONGS IN GAMEPLAY!!!!!

I've got to say I completely disagree with this title, which is for unknown reasons selected for nations which have perfect individual and economical freedom, while getting rid of these dirty political games called 'democracy' (no, it's no democracy! it's the '-cracy' of dirty politicians, and that's all).

Wouldnt that be a particracy then?

I agree with you over the entire line, I'm somwhat of a Libertarian too with really high civil rights and I'm classified as 'Father knows best state'.
Though I wont really complain.

Both Imroon and King Arthur fail to see that a libertarian isnt against elections or democracy per se, we are against the game that is called politics and played only by a small select group of people with wealthy supporters. Only if politicians were elected purely for what they can and will do for the people (instead of making stupid promisses) can there be a 'real democracy'.

If this isnt possible, then the libertarian doesnt want no government.
A libertarian state is never and can never be a dictatorship, a libertarian doesnt force people to do as he wants, he lets them live their own life.

I agree with Imroon and King Arthur the Great, 'Benevolent Dictatorship' perfectly suits the kind of nation you described. And, no offense meant, Frocks, but somehow I doubt Max will rename the category because of a single player's complaint.

In NS, political freedoms refer to the average citizen's power within the government, and has nothing to do with whether or not the government is a corrupt mass of lies or a saintly mass of truth. Thus, a benevolent dictatorship is a perfect example of the described situation; a benevolent dictator, in general, lets his citizens do as they wish, but he doesn't let them influence the government's decisions. A dictator doesn't have to force his citizens to do things; he just has sole power within the government. BTW, just because you say "I'm libertarian in RL" doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be libertarian on NS. Unless you have Uber-1337 NS skillz or something along those lines.

Damnit!

You dictate what happens, but you do it in a way that is benevolent to the people. So, "benevolent dictatorship."

I even can't imagine libertarianism together with the democratic ruling model -- it's easier for me to imagine a libertarian monarchy.

Right. So, as above, you have a state with an unelected ruler, but which does not oppress its citizens rights to do business or their civil rights. This means the state is benevolent, and ruled by a dictator or similar figure.

Which is why it's called a 'Benevolent Dictatorship.'

Not being changed.

I agree it shouldn't be changed, but perhaps the topic detailing government types could be ammended to explain exactly what a dictator is so that people won't freak out about this.

A dictator is one who dictates. Fairly simple.

I meant something that defines it coherently, not something which requires the reader to read your mind to understand. What specifically do you mean by "one who dictates"? Yes I know what it means but that isn't the point. One who doesn't understand exactly what a dictator is wouldn't know that. This is especially true for political definitions, as politics is far from uncomplicated.