Libertarian Socialist ConfederationBoard

Ecosociala wrote:

You're classified as "inoffensive centrist democracy."

If your nation is set to "liberal", the game replaces this classification with "fascists." (If you set your nation to conservative, it will say "communists.") It's just making fun of the political climate.

This will be fixed if you select the "neutral" government category.

oh ok thats fine

My issues take like 9 hours to make a new one now lol but its annoying

Fachumonn wrote:

? Liberals are now fascists?

Jordan Peterson has entered the game.

Ecosociala wrote:

"Government" = spending on social programs, education, healthcare, military, etc.

"State-owned" = publicly owned industry. You can pretend that this means co-ops instead.

Ohh I like that.

edit: However, in an economy that has private businesses, state-owned businesses, and government, one can imagine that private businesses equals co-ops, state-owned businesses equals public utilities like electric companies, and government equals exactly what you described.

Acrovos wrote:

Jordan Peterson has entered the game.

eww

Gross

lol

Also my issues havent changed anything in my nation loll

Fachumonn wrote:

Also my issues havent changed anything in my nation loll

They don’t always have much of an effect, some issues can have drastic changes while others are pretty trivial.

NEw WA PROPOSAL OUT

I'm voting in favor of this Freedom of Association proposal, but I'd like to hear arguments against it if anyone wants to make them.

Same here

same

Red green and black wrote:

I'm voting in favor of this Freedom of Association proposal, but I'd like to hear arguments against it if anyone wants to make them.

I voted against since by that we would allow people to join racist organisations such as KKK or some Nazi groups that may not technically harm people, but allowing them to exists keeps spreading the idea.

Benilandia wrote:

I voted against since by that we would allow people to join racist organisations such as KKK or some Nazi groups that may not technically harm people, but allowing them to exists keeps spreading the idea.

"[A]n organisation may have criminal penalties attached for association with it on the basis that it...spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group."

Puppetalia is a year old today!!

Red green and black wrote:

I see what you're saying. I think that the language of the proposal can be less confusing. The way I understood it is this:

There's a main clause that says "Believing that no nation should enact criminal penalties for affiliating with an organisation not involved in the commission of a crime, hereby enacts the following subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation:" So I understood that to mean that the WA should not prohibit anyone from joining an organization with a clean criminal record.

And underneath that main clause there is a subclause (clause b) that attempts to describe what kind of organization can be considered undesireable. That's the clause that reads "An organisation may have criminal penalties attached for association with it on the basis that it actively undermines national security, directs its members to violate national criminal law, includes the commission of crimes among its goals or activities, or spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group."

In a well written proposal, terms that need to be defined are clearly defined at the start and in such a way that the reader knows it's a definition to be applied to what's below it. So because this clause was at the very bottom, I can see how it seems not like a definition and more like a statement in support of these kinds of groups.

I see that now. I probably missed out on it. Thank you for bringing my attention to it.

I also voted in favour as it seems rather pro-union. While I understand why people may be worried about it protecting fascistic groups, the part on criminal activity probably covers that, so generally the proposal seems in line with what the region values.

Utarchous wrote:

I also voted in favour as it seems rather pro-union. While I understand why people may be worried about it protecting fascistic groups, the part on criminal activity probably covers that, so generally the proposal seems in line with what the region values.

Looks like it is gonna pass

Red green and black wrote:

I was wondering how you chose the design for the flag.

I don't remember, but I have thought about proposing ideas before. I don't have any for now, of course.

I voted against as it's a weak implementation of the idea, but I admit that it is very much well-intentioned.

Clause 1a may empower transphobic groups, for instance, to exclude transgender men and women in organizations/groups/clubs that are very much meant for their respective genders. To elaborate, an organization may claim to be exclusive to women, but exclude transgender women on the basis that "you're not a woman!!!". Like... no.

Clause 1b is worded too vaguely. What is a threat to national security? What counts as intentions "to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group"? Does this not empower governments to crack down on political dissidents and potentially punishing whistleblowers/anyone that in some way offends the government? What if the government criminalizes protest in some form?

TL;DR This is harmful to ACAB, for instance, but not to Blue Lives Matter. The clause on "national security" would allow authoritarian regimes to suppress any group advocating for reform on the basis that it is a threat to the state or that it is advocating hate of the state.

[quote=mitsuko;43584149]I voted against as it's a weak implementation of the idea, but I admit that it is very much well-intentioned.

Clause 1a may empower transphobic groups, for instance, to exclude transgender men and women in organizations/groups/clubs that are very much meant for their respective genders. To elaborate, an organization may claim to be exclusive to women, but exclude transgender women on the basis that "you're not a woman!!!". Like... no.

Clause 1b is worded too vaguely. What is a threat to national security? What counts as intentions "to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group"? Does this not empower governments to crack down on political dissidents and potentially punishing whistleblowers/anyone that in some way offends the government? What if the government criminalizes protest in some form?

TL;DR This is harmful to ACAB, for instance, but not to Blue Lives Matter. The clause on "national security" would allow authoritarian regimes to suppress any group advocating for reform on the basis that it is a threat to the state or that it is advocating hate of the state.[/quoteG goof argument but im still voting for also, the computer would have to come up with that scenario and therefore it would be an issue you could answer in multiple ways, so it would give you the choice to not just automatically do that, also they already kinda had that power. (pretty sure)(dont quote me im prob wrong some of them are kinda guesses im not an expert