Support for authoritarianism?

[----]

The recent topics and posts on this sub-forum have led me to ask the following question; how supportive of authoritarianism are the players who typically post on these fora? I am especially fascinated by the players who have supported authoritarian governments and illiberal social norms, but refuse to support 'unfree' economics.

As I have written before, states whose existential purpose is statehood for a given nationality (ethnic nationalism) must ensure said nationality's sovereignty in five basic spheres: politics, society, culture, economy/material reality and religion.

Where is the line drawn between freedom and the achievement of a nation's sovereign order? Please comment and debate anything related to this post, but, please try to keep the discussion civil and intellectual (no emotionalism).

Edited December 5, 2016 by Klemens Hawicki

[Floating Hippo]

Don't listen to kaiser, he drinks the cat piss.

[Rozalia]

I'm not opposed to authoritarianism as after all we can see what the opposite has given us and its hardly something worth keeping at all costs, however its destruction is not something I'd push for heavily or anything. Not Illiberal as far as I know as I support personal freedoms heavily, I simply am not so taken in like most people that to be "free" they got to be total doormats. As for economics I don't subscribe to the free market holy ghost and support the government taking more control (if its lead by someone other than the main parties out there in the world).

[----]

Just to clarify, economic order/authoritarianism does not have to be equated with socialism/communism (egalitarianism). All that economic authoritarianism indicates is any sort of fundamental prevention of free-market economics (or as I call it, 'economic/material anarchy').

[Big Brother]

I'm mainly opposed to authoritarianism in most forms though I do believe that it's necessary for states to exercise control over important industries and vital aspects of the economy to ensure that all citizens have equal access to services like healthcare, education, etc., and to ensure that the nation's resources actually benefit its people, through state ownership. This doesn't necessarily have to entail central planning in the traditional, left-wing sense, it could also mean controlling business through state ownership of shares in private companies, which is what the Chinese and Norwegians do.

 

As for less vital aspects of the economy, I'm all for the "free" market and entrepreneurship, there's a lot of things that don't really need overbearing state control though I believe there will probably always be the need for some level of regulation in most, if not all parts of the economy. I don't trust the free market to simply work things out on its own, the state has to be able to step in and take the reins when difficulties or problems occur.

 

In regards to system of governance or political freedoms, I'm conflicted. In the ideal society where every citizen is well-educated and informed, I would argue in favor of direct democracy. However, I don't trust people in the world as it is now to be able to make politically sound decisions. It doesn't make sense to me that people who don't know a single thing about politics or governance should have a say in such things. It simply doesn't strike me as something that would lead to good things, so I'm very interested in the idea of meritocracy. In my mind, if you need to pass education to be an economist, a lawyer, an engineer, a cook and so on, then you should have to pass education if you want to engage in political leadership as well. I believe that anyone should be allowed to participate in governance, in the state, but also that you should be required to show that you're qualified to do so. After all, these are people who make very important decisions so there should be certain guarantees that they actually know what they're doing. For a system like that to be fair at all, whatever education or classes you'd be required to take would have to be free and available to everyone, preferably also in formats that allow people who don't have much time on their hands to take advantage as well.

 

I think it would be preferable if people ruled themselves, I just want to make sure they know what they're doing first. Otherwise, I reckon things might go terribly wrong in many cases. Once everyone knows what they're doing, direct democracy. When only some people know what they're doing, meritocracy.

 

I'm the least authoritarian when it comes to civil liberties. I believe in freedom of expression, religion and the freedom to make your own choices, even if they're stupid and self-destructive. I think the state should accommodate the needs of the civilian population, educate them, take care of them, watch over them and make sure everyone plays by the rules, but interfere as little as possible and only when it's necessary, like when people are in danger. Let people live however they want, they only have one life and it doesn't belong to anyone else. The state should shape society to allow for the highest degree of personal independence and development as possible.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Living in the USA, ethnic nationalism is more or less impossible as a national goal.  Unless you broadly group "whites" into some an ethnic category.  To see authoritarianism of a non-ethnic sort at play in America, the best example is probably wartime USA under Roosevelt or Lincoln.  Dissent was quashed.  Civil rights were completely subsumed by the needs of the war.  And that's good.  Society's which value "freedom" over "victory" get to enjoy slavery and subjugation from their enemies.  With the USA operating at a permanent war footing since the Korean War, we haven't really seen the rise of authoritarianism, partly because of our divided governmental powers.  The closest "post-WWII" authoritarianism we had might be the McCarthy "red scare" era, but I totally get it.  Every man, woman and child in the country was at risk of instant death from a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, it makes sense to curtail freedom where it helps your goals.

 

My point is essentially, the state has a duty to protect its citizens, and that duty must sometimes mean curtailing freedom.  A robust tradition of freedom ensures the people will demand it back when the crisis has passed.  That doesn't mean it isn't dangerous, or that the freedoms will always come back.  

 

You used the word existential.  When an existential threat, as in literally, the threat's worst outcome means your people/nation stop existing, then virtually any curtailment is acceptable.  

[Doktor Avalanche]

Interesting how many here believe in the State just the same as a god, to be the overall benevolent, righteous ruler. Same with their version of economics. Whoever controls the money controls the country. It is best if the citizens have that control. This is my personal opinion.

 

It is always a good thing to question authority. 

 

!@#$ Meritocracy. A trained politician is a trained monkey.

[Big Brother]

The closest "post-WWII" authoritarianism we had might be the McCarthy "red scare" era, but I totally get it.  Every man, woman and child in the country was at risk of instant death from a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, it makes sense to curtail freedom where it helps your goals.

 

They were in no more danger from the Soviet Union than the Soviet Union was from the United States. The Red Scare was a massive witch hunt, a propaganda movement meant to weaken the working class of the United States in favor of the elite. It was no different than any of Stalin's purges and just as necessary and unacceptable. It was hyped up fear that created an enemy within that for the most part wasn't there. I can understand the desire to expel spies from the country, but I cannot understand how any state could justify imprisoning people for lacking "political loyalty" and "un-Americanism". The state doesn't have the right to imprison people based on political or religious beliefs. What goal did any of it achieve besides maintaining exploitative capitalism and ensuring that workers in the United States were too afraid to try to improve their own conditions? The Red Scare did not make nuclear annihilation any less likely.

 

Interesting how many here believe in the State just the same as a god, to be the overall benevolent, righteous ruler. Same with their version of economics. Whoever controls the money controls the country. It is best if the citizens have that control. This is my personal opinion.

 

It is always a good thing to question authority. 

 

!@#$ Meritocracy. A trained politician is a trained monkey.

 

We're all trained apes in the end, we should never forget that. The ideal state is made up by the people for the people, but they need to be trained or educated in order for there to be any guarantee of them knowing what they're doing. All the other man-apes have to be trained for their jobs, why shouldn't those who want to govern have to do the same?

 

It's interesting for me to see how distrustful a lot of Americans are towards the government because my view of the state is such a contrast to that distrust. As a European I've always seen the state as the protector and will of the people and the vanguard of our sovereignty. No other force has done more to improve the lives of citizens in my country than the state, which is exactly what a state is supposed to do. The state as it is now mainly exists to realize the will of the people and they're nothing without the people's votes. Sure, plenty of people believe that the state has grown too big and overbearing but very rarely do they genuinely believe that the government is a force of evil. Bad states are bad states, but that doesn't mean we should reject good states.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Big Brother

[Caecus]

It is to my understanding, with the exception of wartime status, that the US has never experimented with a command economy. Even during the First World War, associationalism was dominant. And the Second World War was a matter of distributing resources (Poor Coca Cola). 

 

Political authoritarianism, in the form of autocracy, is inherently unstable and thus poorly suited for any nation wanting to last longer than the average lifespan of a human male. 

 

It's interesting for me to see how distrustful a lot of Americans are towards the government because my view of the state is such a contrast to that distrust. As a European I've always seen the state as the protector and will of the people and the vanguard of our sovereignty. No other force has done more to improve the lives of citizens in my country than the state, which is exactly what a state is supposed to do. The state as it is now mainly exists to realize the will of the people and they're nothing without the people's votes. Sure, plenty of people believe that the state has grown too big and overbearing but very rarely do they genuinely believe that the government is a force of evil. Bad states are bad states, but that doesn't mean we should reject good states.

 

Blame Nixon. 

 

 

Also, free will is an illusion.

[Big Brother]

Also, free will is an illusion.

 

You're right. That reminds me of this quote from a TV show:

 

I'd consider myself a realist, alright? But in philosophical terms I'm what's called a pessimist... I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself - we are creatures that should not exist by natural law... We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody's nobody...

[----]

Living in the USA, ethnic nationalism is more or less impossible as a national goal.  Unless you broadly group "whites" into some an ethnic category.  

Of course such nationalism is impossible in the United States. Each state has a differing raison d'être. Some states exist to give sovereignty to certain institutions and ideas, with far less attention paid to ethnicity. This category of states is best exemplified by the United States and post-revolutionary France ('liberté, égalité, fraternité'). However, the smaller states in Eastern Europe, like Poland (my real-life homeland), were generally created to give sovereignty to a specific nationality, with less emphasis on the nature of political institutions and ideas. In short, both types of states manifest distinct forms of nationalism; civic/institutional and ethnic.

 

While the topic of chauvinist (belief in superiority) ethnic-nationalism has been beaten to death after the First and Second World Wars following the defeats of the Second and Third Reich, much less attention has been given, both academically and popularly, to civic/institutional chauvinism.

 

One example of civic chauvinism is the USSR's attempts to spread communism throughout its proposed 'World Revolution'. Another example is the attempt to spread liberal-democratic ideals at the expense of the sovereignty of nations that traditionally did not espouse such ideas, but that can be a topic for another thread.

 

I have observed is a seeming paradox in the defence of sovereignty for civic/institutional ideals. These ideals have usually revolved around liberty, freedom, limitations on government, yet how do such systems reconcile authoritarians who arise in defence of these states' sovereignty? The rule of General Bonaparte offers one of the best examples of this paradox. Any thoughts?        

Edited December 6, 2016 by Klemens Hawicki

[Doktor Avalanche]

They were in no more danger from the Soviet Union than the Soviet Union was from the United States. The Red Scare was a massive witch hunt, a propaganda movement meant to weaken the working class of the United States in favor of the elite. It was no different than any of Stalin's purges and just as necessary and unacceptable. It was hyped up fear that created an enemy within that for the most part wasn't there. I can understand the desire to expel spies from the country, but I cannot understand how any state could justify imprisoning people for lacking "political loyalty" and "un-Americanism". The state doesn't have the right to imprison people based on political or religious beliefs. What goal did any of it achieve besides maintaining exploitative capitalism and ensuring that workers in the United States were too afraid to try to improve their own conditions? The Red Scare did not make nuclear annihilation any less likely.

 

 

We're all trained apes in the end, we should never forget that. The ideal state is made up by the people for the people, but they need to be trained or educated in order for there to be any guarantee of them knowing what they're doing. All the other man-apes have to be trained for their jobs, why shouldn't those who want to govern have to do the same?

 

It's interesting for me to see how distrustful a lot of Americans are towards the government because my view of the state is such a contrast to that distrust. As a European I've always seen the state as the protector and will of the people and the vanguard of our sovereignty. No other force has done more to improve the lives of citizens in my country than the state, which is exactly what a state is supposed to do. The state as it is now mainly exists to realize the will of the people and they're nothing without the people's votes. Sure, plenty of people believe that the state has grown too big and overbearing but very rarely do they genuinely believe that the government is a force of evil. Bad states are bad states, but that doesn't mean we should reject good states.

What exactly is the job of the State when it "takes care of its people/citizens"? I am amused that you prefer the State to take care of you, and that you see this as an entitlement of being a citizen. This is a blindness I fear.

 

And no, it was not Nixon. There is a mindset in the United States which European nationalists will never understand and can argue about for generations. This is not a slam but just an acceptance of views and practices. Stay warm in your mindset and expect more of those with similar concepts to join you all in Sweden. We let them go happily.

[Big Brother]

What exactly is the job of the State when it "takes care of its people/citizens"? I am amused that you prefer the State to take care of you, and that you see this as an entitlement of being a citizen. This is a blindness I fear.

 

And no, it was not Nixon. There is a mindset in the United States which European nationalists will never understand and can argue about for generations. This is not a slam but just an acceptance of views and practices. Stay warm in your mindset and expect more of those with similar concepts to join you all in Sweden. We let them go happily.

 

Well I don't mean that the state should do everything for you, just that there should be enough social security to keep people from falling through the cracks in the system. Vital services like healthcare and education should be available to as many people as possible. People would still have to put in work to improve the quality of their lives should they want to do so but I believe the state has a responsibility to be there as a support when people fall on hard times, economically, physically, mentally and so on.

 

You're probably right about the mindset. I guess I sort of understand it, I just believe that the state is the best tool for solving societal problems in the world today. As for Sweden, that place is nasty. I can't imagine anyone would want to go to such a foul place.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Big Brother

[Sylvia]

The recent topics and posts on this sub-forum have led me to ask the following question; how supportive of authoritarianism are the players who typically post on these fora? I am especially fascinated by the players who have supported authoritarian governments and illiberal social norms, but refuse to support 'unfree' economics.

 

As I have written before, states whose existential purpose is statehood for a given nationality (ethnic nationalism) must ensure said nationality's sovereignty in five basic spheres: politics, society, culture, economy/material reality and religion.

 

Where is the line drawn between freedom and the achievement of a nation's sovereign order? Please comment and debate anything related to this post, but, please try to keep the discussion civil and intellectual (no emotionalism).

What exactly do you mean by "unfree economics"?   I've tried to google the term and get links to either forced labor or unfree trade.  So please provide a link or something to a definition.  Thanks.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

So, when a politician threatens a business if it doesn't do what he wants that is "Free economics" if he's right-wing?

[Clarke]

So, when a politician threatens a business if it doesn't do what he wants that is "Free economics" if he's right-wing?

If you said what he wants your argument would be weak but you're being very dishonest by making it so general. 

The fact is that it isn't so general. 

[Caecus]

So, when a politician threatens a business if it doesn't do what he wants that is "Free economics" if he's right-wing?

 

Ah, no doubt referring to Trump and Carrier. Yep, the world is !@#$ed up. Even Sarah Palin wrote an op-ed about it. Republicans aren't Republicans anymore. 

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Ah, no doubt referring to Trump and Carrier. Yep, the world is !@#$ed up. Even Sarah Palin wrote an op-ed about it. Republicans aren't Republicans anymore. 

Also Boeing.

[Rozalia]

Also Boeing.

 

Trump has obtained Tweets of mass destruction. World's most powerful shitposter who Twitter can't even ban.

 

Anyway I don't see the issue. If he does something people wanted then how he did it isn't relevant to most people. If he leans on a couple of companies or does some other things then all people will care about is the jobs that it results in. If he wipes out ISIS and it takes supporting Assad then people will only care about him getting ISIS wiped out.

[----]

Trump has obtained Tweets of mass destruction. World's most powerful shitposter who Twitter can't even ban.

 

Anyway I don't see the issue. If he does something people wanted then how he did it isn't relevant to most people. If he leans on a couple of companies or does some other things then all people will care about is the jobs that it results in. If he wipes out ISIS and it takes supporting Assad then people will only care about him getting ISIS wiped out.

Exactly. People should stop worrying about the means and focus on achieving the ends. Achievements of any sort are impeded by this moralistic hang-up on procedure (same thing happens in real-life Poland).

[Caecus]

Trump has obtained Tweets of mass destruction. World's most powerful shitposter who Twitter can't even ban.

 

Anyway I don't see the issue. If he does something people wanted then how he did it isn't relevant to most people. If he leans on a couple of companies or does some other things then all people will care about is the jobs that it results in. If he wipes out ISIS and it takes supporting Assad then people will only care about him getting ISIS wiped out.

 

See, I take issue to all your crazy statements Roz. I know you are just baiting me, but here goes....

 

 

You seriously want the real-world equivalent of GreatKitteh to handle the largest nuclear arsenal and the great military power in human history? 

 

Secondly, Assad isn't doing the wiping of anything. Assad is currently being propped up by Shia militias from Iran and the Russian air force. He doesn't have a military. You want to give credit for the push against Isis? It's the Kurds, the (mostly Shia now) Iraqis, Iranian militias, Russian missiles, and THE US MILITARY! Yes! We are currently fighting isis, contrary to what many Trump supporters will say about Obama not being involved. 

 

Also, Trump is fighting a decades-long economic phenomenon by sticking his small hands against the tidal wave of economic history. He's probably going to save a couple thousand jobs, nobody should deny that. But he's not going to stop the hemorrhaging net loss of several million over his presidency. 

[Rozalia]

See, I take issue to all your crazy statements Roz. I know you are just baiting me, but here goes....

 

 

You seriously want the real-world equivalent of GreatKitteh to handle the largest nuclear arsenal and the great military power in human history? 

 

Secondly, Assad isn't doing the wiping of anything. Assad is currently being propped up by Shia militias from Iran and the Russian air force. He doesn't have a military. You want to give credit for the push against Isis? It's the Kurds, the (mostly Shia now) Iraqis, Iranian militias, Russian missiles, and THE US MILITARY! Yes! We are currently fighting isis, contrary to what many Trump supporters will say about Obama not being involved. 

 

Also, Trump is fighting a decades-long economic phenomenon by sticking his small hands against the tidal wave of economic history. He's probably going to save a couple thousand jobs, nobody should deny that. But he's not going to stop the hemorrhaging net loss of several million over his presidency. 

 

The Roz does not need to set out to bait anyone, them getting flustered is simply a consequence of me saying things they struggle to handle.

 

Why not? Thus far he has been doing regarding jobs what he has said he'd do (and not even President yet to boot) and through a simple phone call got China sweating (who treated Obama like a joke) and his enemies in America humiliating themselves (lol that they argue in favour of China, a dictatorship, over a Liberal Democracy because Trump is on the other side). I remember a while back some talk, by people who despise Trump mind, saying that perhaps crazy as it is perhaps only Trump can do certain things (like Nixon). I mean peace in Israel-Palestine for example which Trump has expressed wanting. We'll see on that but a nice peace with Russia? That one is certainly something only a strongman like Trump can do.

 

Oh dear, nobody has ever denied that Obama is there, of course he is and that was the problem in the first place. He propped up and supported those "moderates" otherwise known as the head choppers who aren't named ISIS which is why this has all gone on so long. The bombings that came afterwards were anaemic and ineffective. As for Assad's forces from what I remember hearing Assad is mostly keeping his forces intact as best he can and making use of the "volunteers" on his side which is smart as he is going to need as much of his army alive as possible for bringing the country to order post-war.

 

Ah good, you reached the stage of admitting he will do some positive things. Thats good.

[Caecus]

The Roz does not need to set out to bait anyone, them getting flustered is simply a consequence of me saying things they struggle to handle.

 

Why not? Thus far he has been doing regarding jobs what he has said he'd do (and not even President yet to boot) and through a simple phone call got China sweating (who treated Obama like a joke) and his enemies in America humiliating themselves (lol that they argue in favour of China, a dictatorship, over a Liberal Democracy because Trump is on the other side). I remember a while back some talk, by people who despise Trump mind, saying that perhaps crazy as it is perhaps only Trump can do certain things (like Nixon). I mean peace in Israel-Palestine for example which Trump has expressed wanting. We'll see on that but a nice peace with Russia? That one is certainly something only a strongman like Trump can do.

 

Oh dear, nobody has ever denied that Obama is there, of course he is and that was the problem in the first place. He propped up and supported those "moderates" otherwise known as the head choppers who aren't named ISIS which is why this has all gone on so long. The bombings that came afterwards were anaemic and ineffective. As for Assad's forces from what I remember hearing Assad is mostly keeping his forces intact as best he can and making use of the "volunteers" on his side which is smart as he is going to need as much of his army alive as possible for bringing the country to order post-war.

 

Ah good, you reached the stage of admitting he will do some positive things. Thats good.

 

The Roz always sets out bait for everyone. 

 

The issue of China and Taiwan isn't a matter of choosing a liberal democracy over a dictatorship. It's about the US's role in keeping the peace in the south China sea by giving things to both parties. The US gives China the passive acceptance that Taiwan is not a country. The US then gives Taiwan military hardware to stave off any mainland encroachment (Honestly, not too bad of a deal for Taiwan). Both are intended to keep each other off one another's throats. Trump - seemingly unintentionally - breaks this tradition and threatens regional peace by seemingly siding with Taiwan and Taiwan's bid for independence (an event surely to spark a war with China). 

 

The exact quote is "the law's totally on my side, the president can't have a conflict of interest." Nixon's quote was "I'm saying that when the president does it, that means that it's not illegal." They are obviously different, but both suggest that the President of the United States is above the law. That means laws written that applies for every other person does not apply for the President. If that freaks you out, that's because it reminds people of a time before the Magna Carta and the age of absolutism. 

 

Oh sure, everyone wants Israel-Palestine peace, not a lot of people don't want that. I just don't think Trump is going to actually make that happen. I mean, if he plans on nuclear proliferation of both sides, that might work, but that more likely will result in someone acci-nuking someone. 

 

Oh? Bombing doesn't work? Do tell how a 28 kg explosive raining down on your head doesn't kill you. 

 

I'm not even sure if saving those jobs is positive. According to Sarah Palin and other conservative economists (Hayek would be turning in his grave if he saw Trump), statist intervention into the free market ultimately leads to (quoting Hayek's Road to Serfdom) soviet-style slavery. Trump is a terrifying prospect for conservative economist, because he is using the state as a vehicle for controlling specific companies, not just an entire section of industry. I'll give you three guess which Cold-War era nation also did that. 

[Rozalia]

The Roz always sets out bait for everyone. 

 

The issue of China and Taiwan isn't a matter of choosing a liberal democracy over a dictatorship. It's about the US's role in keeping the peace in the south China sea by giving things to both parties. The US gives China the passive acceptance that Taiwan is not a country. The US then gives Taiwan military hardware to stave off any mainland encroachment (Honestly, not too bad of a deal for Taiwan). Both are intended to keep each other off one another's throats. Trump - seemingly unintentionally - breaks this tradition and threatens regional peace by seemingly siding with Taiwan and Taiwan's bid for independence (an event surely to spark a war with China). 

 

The exact quote is "the law's totally on my side, the president can't have a conflict of interest." Nixon's quote was "I'm saying that when the president does it, that means that it's not illegal." They are obviously different, but both suggest that the President of the United States is above the law. That means laws written that applies for every other person does not apply for the President. If that freaks you out, that's because it reminds people of a time before the Magna Carta and the age of absolutism. 

 

Oh sure, everyone wants Israel-Palestine peace, not a lot of people don't want that. I just don't think Trump is going to actually make that happen. I mean, if he plans on nuclear proliferation of both sides, that might work, but that more likely will result in someone acci-nuking someone. 

 

Oh? Bombing doesn't work? Do tell how a 28 kg explosive raining down on your head doesn't kill you. 

 

I'm not even sure if saving those jobs is positive. According to Sarah Palin and other conservative economists (Hayek would be turning in his grave if he saw Trump), statist intervention into the free market ultimately leads to (quoting Hayek's Road to Serfdom) soviet-style slavery. Trump is a terrifying prospect for conservative economist, because he is using the state as a vehicle for controlling specific companies, not just an entire section of industry. I'll give you three guess which Cold-War era nation also did that. 

 

Nonsense, China will whine and then do nothing. Their talk of invasion (of Taiwan) is a bluff which they won't go through when Trump thanks to people such as yourself has gotten a reputation as a madman who will nuke China immediately if they do such a thing. I don't believe Trump would but a reputation that he would is always good when dealing with enemies.

Oh and yes it is them supporting a dictatorship over a Liberal Democracy, literally complaining that Trump didn't kowtow to China and their ridiculous demand. No Liberal should be saying it is right to deny Taiwan's existence. It right to deny Israel too because some countries want that? Palestine? Goes on. 

 

You're going for the wrong thing. The Nixon thing I was referring to is, "Only Nixon could go to China". Trump is a strongman so him doing a peacedeal between Israel and Palestine wouldn't get him talked about as weak and "giving the Muslims everything" and such. Also hard to paint him as anti-Jewish in such an equation considering the obvious (and lol at the Liberals who have in the past tried).

 

Taking my words out of context. Yes, if a bomb falls on you its going to be effective. However if you're bombing ineffectively and doing little damage then yes, its ineffective and not working. Bombings in Libya were effective and quickly finished what little hope the country had, in Syria however its much different.

 

Literally saying that you're not sure saving jobs is positive. Just stop, completely discrediting.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Rozalia

[Clarke]

I'm not sure this Caecus chap even has purpose posting as it seems to be mostly poor jokes here and again, perhaps he's just getting ready. 

There is a difference between the economics inside the nation and outside the nation, companies should be paying for selling their products in another nation. It would be no different than a company leaving to another planet and still selling shit and expecting our planet to just accept that, ah no thanks this planet gets treated better than that you pig.