Republics of the World [SEMI-OPEN] Discussion Thread

[The New Lowlands]

If you keep taking money from lefty senators they will be very soon.

The Socialist Party seems very, socialist.

We're kind of split between social democracy and democratic socialism.

[Calces millia]

How about instead of killing/plotting to kill the main character you plot to kill one of the 39 secondary characters?

By the way, i won't gonna kill him. I'll just make him unable to walk for a short time...

[Arkolon]

Assuming that the Imperialist Conservative Party merger took place and there are 5 ICP Senators (Jon, James, E-Z Bribe, Imperium, one Conservative NPC):

Libertarian Party: 15.57%
Socialist Party: 15.74%
Imperialist Conservative Party: 17.67%
Corburn National Party: 12.75%

38.27% of Corburnians believe that no party meets their ideals-- yet you must remember that 11.67% of the population is too young to vote.

Also, which bills passed that need to change things in the sheet?

[Imperium Nova]

Assuming that the Imperialist Conservative Party merger took place and there are 5 ICP Senators (Jon, James, E-Z Bribe, Imperium, one Conservative NPC):

Libertarian Party: 15.57%
Socialist Party: 15.74%
Imperialist Conservative Party: 17.67%
Corburn National Party: 12.75%

38.27% of Corburnians believe that no party meets their ideals-- yet you must remember that 11.67% of the population is too young to vote.

Also, which bills passed that need to change things in the sheet?

How can the Libertatian Party be so huge? Also how did the National Party secure more than 10% of the voting group of the Conservative-Monarchs? The only difference is really that they are republican, so not a lot of Monarchists would join them. And the Conservative Party does not have the same ideas as the National Party.They just represent a small group of republican Monarchists.

[Arkolon]

Assuming that the Imperialist Conservative Party merger took place and there are 5 ICP Senators (Jon, James, E-Z Bribe, Imperium, one Conservative NPC):

Libertarian Party: 15.57%
Socialist Party: 15.74%
Imperialist Conservative Party: 17.67%
Corburn National Party: 12.75%

38.27% of Corburnians believe that no party meets their ideals-- yet you must remember that 11.67% of the population is too young to vote.

Also, which bills passed that need to change things in the sheet?

How can the Libertatian Party be so huge? Also how did the National Party secure more than 10% of the voting group of the Conservative-Monarchs? The only difference is really that they are republican, so not a lot of Monarchists would join them. And the Conservative Party does not have the same ideas as the National Party.They just represent a small group of republican Monarchists.

The Liberal voter base is 6 instead of 3 because of the lawlessness. All unofficial laws are based around ethical judgement, so even if things sometimes go overboard a lot of people do like the lawlessness and would prefer it over authoritarianism. LP supports Liberals. That's why they're so huge.

Corburn National Party supports Patriots and Religious. ICP supports Conservatives and Nationalists. Two different bases now: the CNP didn't directly steal voters from you, just some of your voters turned apathetic and the CNP took the already-apathetic Religious and Patriots into its voter base.

[Imperium Nova]

How can the Libertatian Party be so huge? Also how did the National Party secure more than 10% of the voting group of the Conservative-Monarchs? The only difference is really that they are republican, so not a lot of Monarchists would join them. And the Conservative Party does not have the same ideas as the National Party.They just represent a small group of republican Monarchists.

The Liberal voter base is 6 instead of 3 because of the lawlessness. All unofficial laws are based around ethical judgement, so even if things sometimes go overboard a lot of people do like the lawlessness and would prefer it over authoritarianism. LP supports Liberals. That's why they're so huge.

Corburn National Party supports Patriots and Religious. ICP supports Conservatives and Nationalists. Two different bases now: the CNP didn't directly steal voters from you, just some of your voters turned apathetic and the CNP took the already-apathetic Religious and Patriots into its voter base.

I don't get the argumet that people who live in a lawless society would not like more law. Do you think the people of Somalia likes their predicent? Since there is absolutely nothing in this country, would a party which strives for less government be so popular? I mean, if your house is put on fire, there is no fire patrol. If you get robbed, there is no police force.


Also would not the Conservative and Monarchist party in this system benefit from remaining two parties?

[Arkolon]

The Liberal voter base is 6 instead of 3 because of the lawlessness. All unofficial laws are based around ethical judgement, so even if things sometimes go overboard a lot of people do like the lawlessness and would prefer it over authoritarianism. LP supports Liberals. That's why they're so huge.

Corburn National Party supports Patriots and Religious. ICP supports Conservatives and Nationalists. Two different bases now: the CNP didn't directly steal voters from you, just some of your voters turned apathetic and the CNP took the already-apathetic Religious and Patriots into its voter base.

I don't get the argumet that people who live in a lawless society would not like more law. Do you think the people of Somalia likes their predicent? Since there is absolutely nothing in this country, would a party which strives for less government be so popular? I mean, if your house is put on fire, there is no fire patrol. If you get robbed, there is no police force.


Also would not the Conservative and Monarchist party in this system benefit from remaining two parties?

When you're not taxed, not bothered by the state and live in a state of lawlessness there is no need for Libertarian support, sure. Now, however, there are taxes, you are bothered by the state and there are laws. Not to mention there's a fascist party and a monarchist party. The atmosphere isn't as liberal as it previously was. If your house is put on fire, you call the Private Fire Department. If you're robbed, you call the Private Police. If you can't afford those, too bad. That's what I meant by lawlessness economically.

Secondly, yeah, they would. I'm not sure why you guys want to merger anyway.

[Imperium Nova]

I don't get the argumet that people who live in a lawless society would not like more law. Do you think the people of Somalia likes their predicent? Since there is absolutely nothing in this country, would a party which strives for less government be so popular? I mean, if your house is put on fire, there is no fire patrol. If you get robbed, there is no police force.


Also would not the Conservative and Monarchist party in this system benefit from remaining two parties?

When you're not taxed, not bothered by the state and live in a state of lawlessness there is no need for Libertarian support, sure. Now, however, there are taxes, you are bothered by the state and there are laws. Not to mention there's a fascist party and a monarchist party. The atmosphere isn't as liberal as it previously was. If your house is put on fire, you call the Private Fire Department. If you're robbed, you call the Private Police. If you can't afford those, too bad. That's what I meant by lawlessness economically.

Secondly, yeah, they would. I'm not sure why you guys want to merger anyway.

I mean, to be dependent on private fire and police department is just horrid. There are alao several different companies competing, and if you are not one of their customers, then too bad for you. You'd have to pay insame amounts of money for it all to work out, especially considerimg how poor the people are. This society is not even in the wildest American Republican's wildest dreams. This is an anarchist utopia, nothing else.

Also, most people like laws, for they are made to protect them. Currently, there are also just one law that anyone could be remotely dissatisfied with, the tax law. And At least someone in the nation likes, oh you know, roads.

[Arkolon]

When you're not taxed, not bothered by the state and live in a state of lawlessness there is no need for Libertarian support, sure. Now, however, there are taxes, you are bothered by the state and there are laws. Not to mention there's a fascist party and a monarchist party. The atmosphere isn't as liberal as it previously was. If your house is put on fire, you call the Private Fire Department. If you're robbed, you call the Private Police. If you can't afford those, too bad. That's what I meant by lawlessness economically.

Secondly, yeah, they would. I'm not sure why you guys want to merger anyway.

I mean, to be dependent on private fire and police department is just horrid. There are alao several different companies competing, and if you are not one of their customers, then too bad for you. You'd have to pay insame amounts of money for it all to work out, especially considerimg how poor the people are. This society is not even in the wildest American Republican's wildest dreams. This is an anarchist utopia, nothing else.

Also, most people like laws, for they are made to protect them. Currently, there are also just one law that anyone could be remotely dissatisfied with, the tax law. And At least someone in the nation likes, oh you know, roads.

I'm personally (sort of) for a private police, but hey we should take that somewhere else.

Take it like insurance: you pay no taxes, so you make 100% of your money. This means that where the government would be spending your money (and also paying for things that don't matter to you, ie sports, affirmative action etc) you are paying for yourself, and only for things you want or need. You want protection, browse the numerous private polices to protect you. The competition also drives prices down, so after quite some time it becomes inexpensive. If we assume the private police ratio is equivalent to the police-per-citizen ratio in the US (0.3 per 100; 0.003 per person) and you ought to pay $100,000 to cover one policeperson a year (in Corburn, it's $96,000), it would cost you personally $300 a year. Yeah. $600 a year for double protection. Same would apply for fire departments. People like roads, I agree, but they don't like being forced to pay for them.

[The New Lowlands]

I mean, to be dependent on private fire and police department is just horrid. There are alao several different companies competing, and if you are not one of their customers, then too bad for you. You'd have to pay insame amounts of money for it all to work out, especially considerimg how poor the people are. This society is not even in the wildest American Republican's wildest dreams. This is an anarchist utopia, nothing else.

Also, most people like laws, for they are made to protect them. Currently, there are also just one law that anyone could be remotely dissatisfied with, the tax law. And At least someone in the nation likes, oh you know, roads.

I'm personally (sort of) for a private police, but hey we should take that somewhere else.

Take it like insurance: you pay no taxes, so you make 100% of your money. This means that where the government would be spending your money (and also paying for things that don't matter to you, ie sports, affirmative action etc) you are paying for yourself, and only for things you want or need. You want protection, browse the numerous private polices to protect you. The competition also drives prices down, so after quite some time it becomes inexpensive. If we assume the private police ratio is equivalent to the police-per-citizen ratio in the US (0.3 per 100; 0.003 per person) and you ought to pay $100,000 to cover one policeperson a year (in Corburn, it's $96,000), it would cost you personally $300 a year. Yeah. $600 a year for double protection. Same would apply for fire departments. People like roads, I agree, but they don't like being forced to pay for them.

I can't hear you over market failure and negative externalities.

[Arkolon]

I'm personally (sort of) for a private police, but hey we should take that somewhere else.

Take it like insurance: you pay no taxes, so you make 100% of your money. This means that where the government would be spending your money (and also paying for things that don't matter to you, ie sports, affirmative action etc) you are paying for yourself, and only for things you want or need. You want protection, browse the numerous private polices to protect you. The competition also drives prices down, so after quite some time it becomes inexpensive. If we assume the private police ratio is equivalent to the police-per-citizen ratio in the US (0.3 per 100; 0.003 per person) and you ought to pay $100,000 to cover one policeperson a year (in Corburn, it's $96,000), it would cost you personally $300 a year. Yeah. $600 a year for double protection. Same would apply for fire departments. People like roads, I agree, but they don't like being forced to pay for them.

I can't hear you over market failure and negative externalities.

Why would the market fail here? Police protection would be a blue chip investment.

[The New Lowlands]

I can't hear you over market failure and negative externalities.

Why would the market fail here? Police protection would be a blue chip investment.

I was thinking more about the roads.

Additionally, ending state monopoly on violence isn't a good idea in my book.

[Winovia]

So, who will control the 4 inactive senators?

James. And there are only 3 inactive in the CP, and James can only use up to two in his votes.

What about inactive socialist

[Arkolon]

Why would the market fail here? Police protection would be a blue chip investment.

I was thinking more about the roads.

Additionally, ending state monopoly on violence isn't a good idea in my book.

Oh, right, roads. Well, yeah. I'm a minarchist, not an anarchocapitalist, so I must say that I am for public roads, legislature, a public military, fire department and, in some categorical respects, police. I don't personally agree with the latter myself because the state monopoly of anything isn't a good idea in my book.

[Arkolon]

James. And there are only 3 inactive in the CP, and James can only use up to two in his votes.

What about inactive socialist

Only one of you, and I'll let you guys keep him and vote with him simply because if it weren't for Alouite we wouldn't be here today.

[The New Lowlands]

I was thinking more about the roads.

Additionally, ending state monopoly on violence isn't a good idea in my book.

Oh, right, roads. Well, yeah. I'm a minarchist, not an anarchocapitalist, so I must say that I am for public roads, legislature, a public military, fire department and, in some categorical respects, police. I don't personally agree with the latter myself because the state monopoly of anything isn't a good idea in my book.

I suppose that most of our differences stem from me living in the social-democratic Glorious North European Motherland. Ура!

[Winovia]

What about inactive socialist

Only one of you, and I'll let you guys keep him and vote with him simply because if it weren't for Alouite we wouldn't be here today.

Who gets to control the vote?

[Imperium Nova]

Why would the market fail here? Police protection would be a blue chip investment.

I was thinking more about the roads.

Additionally, ending state monopoly on violence isn't a good idea in my book.

How would it cost $300 a year? Also, the police would cut corners, perhaps cut down on some unit. Also, every police station can't be prepared for everything. They would lack the resources for it all. Also, sure they may spend it on something you don't like, like protection for yourself? I am not saying that Corburn might have some liberals and libertarians in it, but this has just gone too far. For them to vote on a party which decreases the state is just ridiculous. Also, living in a society with some of the world's highest taxes, Sweden, i can still tell you that an overwhelming majority of the people want higher taxes. Despite the taxes being at least 2x higher than that of Corburn.

[The New Lowlands]

I was thinking more about the roads.

Additionally, ending state monopoly on violence isn't a good idea in my book.

How would it cost $300 a year? Also, the police would cut corners, perhaps cut down on some unit. Also, every police station can't be prepared for everything. They would lack the resources for it all. Also, sure they may spend it on something you don't like, like protection for yourself? I am not saying that Corburn might have some liberals and libertarians in it, but this has just gone too far. For them to vote on a party which decreases the state is just ridiculous. Also, living in a society with some of the world's highest taxes, Sweden, i can still tell you that an overwhelming majority of the people want higher taxes. Despite the taxes being at least 2x higher than that of Corburn.

Imperium, a quick note; nobody ever wants higher taxes. At best, they tolerate them.

[Imperium Nova]

How would it cost $300 a year? Also, the police would cut corners, perhaps cut down on some unit. Also, every police station can't be prepared for everything. They would lack the resources for it all. Also, sure they may spend it on something you don't like, like protection for yourself? I am not saying that Corburn might have some liberals and libertarians in it, but this has just gone too far. For them to vote on a party which decreases the state is just ridiculous. Also, living in a society with some of the world's highest taxes, Sweden, i can still tell you that an overwhelming majority of the people want higher taxes. Despite the taxes being at least 2x higher than that of Corburn.

Imperium, a quick note; nobody ever wants higher taxes. At best, they tolerate them.

Sure they do. Some people want it for the reason to feel lile they are contributing to the state and society. But most want the desired effecta of it, namely the social welfare. This is te stance of the majority of the Swedes.

[The New Lowlands]

Imperium, a quick note; nobody ever wants higher taxes. At best, they tolerate them.

Sure they do. Some people want it for the reason to feel lile they are contributing to the state and society. But most want the desired effecta of it, namely the social welfare. This is te stance of the majority of the Swedes.

That's not wanting higher taxes, that's wanting more government services and tolerating a higher tax rate in return. If you could get more services without increasing taxes, people would go for that.

[Imperium Nova]

Sure they do. Some people want it for the reason to feel lile they are contributing to the state and society. But most want the desired effecta of it, namely the social welfare. This is te stance of the majority of the Swedes.

That's not wanting higher taxes, that's wanting more government services and tolerating a higher tax rate in return. If you could get more services without increasing taxes, people would go for that.

Tolerate is not really the right word, as I said. Also, when people feel that they just have too much money, they want to pay higher taxes. To help their fellow man in the altruistic way.

[Winovia]

That's not wanting higher taxes, that's wanting more government services and tolerating a higher tax rate in return. If you could get more services without increasing taxes, people would go for that.

Tolerate is not really the right word, as I said. Also, when people feel that they just have too much money, they want to pay higher taxes. To help their fellow man in the altruistic way.

Yeah..... no they don't, not most people in the world at least

[Arkolon]

Only one of you, and I'll let you guys keep him and vote with him simply because if it weren't for Alouite we wouldn't be here today.

Who gets to control the vote?

Chief Whip

I was thinking more about the roads.

Additionally, ending state monopoly on violence isn't a good idea in my book.

How would it cost $300 a year? Also, the police would cut corners, perhaps cut down on some unit. Also, every police station can't be prepared for everything. They would lack the resources for it all. Also, sure they may spend it on something you don't like, like protection for yourself? I am not saying that Corburn might have some liberals and libertarians in it, but this has just gone too far. For them to vote on a party which decreases the state is just ridiculous. Also, living in a society with some of the world's highest taxes, Sweden, i can still tell you that an overwhelming majority of the people want higher taxes. Despite the taxes being at least 2x higher than that of Corburn.

You just saw me do the maths... It would cost $300 a year because $100,000 x 0.003 = $300. "Also, every police station can't be prepared for everything. They would lack the resources for it all." -- well, doesn't that completely destroy your "state police is better" argument? Not decreasing the state, just keeping it as is, as as you have pointed out, we can't have less of a state.

Like The New Lowlands said, no one wants higher taxes. Nuh uh. If they wanted to help their community they would spend their money on local goods, helping the economy, not wasting it on politicians' pay.

Oh, right, roads. Well, yeah. I'm a minarchist, not an anarchocapitalist, so I must say that I am for public roads, legislature, a public military, fire department and, in some categorical respects, police. I don't personally agree with the latter myself because the state monopoly of anything isn't a good idea in my book.

I suppose that most of our differences stem from me living in the social-democratic Glorious North European Motherland. Ура!

Luxembourg here, which would put us in the same boat.

[Imperium Nova]

Tolerate is not really the right word, as I said. Also, when people feel that they just have too much money, they want to pay higher taxes. To help their fellow man in the altruistic way.

Yeah..... no they don't, not most people in the world at least

True. But would you rather live in Somalia or Scandinavia?