Romanoffia for Delegate

Lennart:
Thank you for this explanation, Roman, it's really appreciated.

I know it's difficult to talk about these matters; I cannot demand you to have my same opinion but at the same time I feel you can balance this out.

Now for some different questions: What can we expect of your activity in-game? Will you be regularly active on RMB?

Thank you :)
Click to expand...
I intend to be a fully active and engaged Delegate. It is my goal to get a little more cohesion in the government in terms of establishing more coordination between the ministries to assure that they work together for a common objective and not work against each other.

Each ministry has a specific function and these functions should support each other, advise the Delegate and act largely in an advise and consent capacity. This means that each minister should regularly report to the Delegate, keep the delegate informed as per their ministries' activities and plans. While I believe in a certain amount of 'autonomy' for the various ministries, that 'autonomy' needs to be in line with the larger objectives of the region in general. I will expect the various ministers to consult with me before acting in any manor that might be counter-productive in terms of foreign affairs or internal affairs.

I also intend to take more of a leading role in defense affairs insofar as it relates to supporting the security of the region. I am a firm believer that military activity should serve some objective purpose and not produce any problems relating to foreign affairs. After all, the Delegate is technically the Commander in Chief of the NPA and I intend to act in that capacity - which is something no recent Delegates have appeared to have done.

A Delegate is a chief executive officers and should function in that role and that is what I intend to do. That requires me to be extremely active - The position of Delegate is a powerful tool for the promotion of and advancement of the region. This requires that the Delegate also act as a chief diplomat by interacting with other regional delegates directly or upon recommendation of the MoFA.

I will be regularly active on the RMB, mainly to keep nations not participating on the forum 'in the loop' in terms of regional goings on, and hopefully to encourage those nations to participate in the forum and the governance of the region. Recently, we have seen a drop in the population of the region - which means that we need to increase our use of the RMB not only to retain nations withing the region, but also to get them involved. The MoC should also take as a major function, interaction on the RMB to keep the region informed beyond just the scope of the forum.
 
And as promised elsewhere:

A couple of questions to show that there are indeed differences between all of us candidates despite the complaints about this alleged condition. (And out of fairness, I will answer these same questions, if applicable, in my own campaign thread. I hope other candidates will do the same thing).

Questions that no one has thought to ask any candidate for Delegate:

1.) If a bill were to come before the RA and be passed that made TNP either a 'Raider Region' or a 'Defender Region', would you veto one, the other, or both (presuming the bill did not achieve a veto-proof passage)? Explain your answer.

2.) When would you apply raider tactics and when would you apply defender tactics? Specifically, will you tolerate random raiding or random defending as a means to keep the NPA active?

3.) How do you feel about the NPA being 'politicized' as manifested by the existence of the Tyr's Hand Party? Is this a good thing or a bad thing that a political party essentially represent a segment or faction of the NPA?


And a final question which would not be applicable to me:

4.) I notice that Gladio (see: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8138186&t=7181141 has voiced the opinion that the Tyr's Hand Party throw their support behind you for Delegate. If the TH party formally endorses you for Delegate, will you accept that endorsement? Will you make their platform policies your policies in terms of military activities and policy?
Click to expand...


1.) If a bill were to come before the RA and be passed that made TNP either a 'Raider Region' or a 'Defender Region', would you veto one, the other, or both (presuming the bill did not achieve a veto-proof passage)? Explain your answer.


At the present time, I would veto such a bill out of hand. It would take some pretty extenuating circumstances to make that otherwise.

I have no issues with using Raider or Defender tactics when needed under a coherent and objective defense policy that best serves the interests and reputation of the region. I do not believe in Defending for the sake of defending, nor do I believe in Raiding for the sake of raiding as either is a waste of resources and time, and tends to cause more problems than it can solve. I firmly believe in using raiding tactics to disrupt an enemy threat and to disrupt an enemy's allies. I also believe in using defender tactics to defend where needed. I also know that both tactics can be used together as a means to an objective end (such as actually invading an enemy in order to render them incapable or unwilling to continue the fight in time or war).

I am going to be politically incorrect by saying that in philosophical terms, I am not entirely neutral on the R/D issue, but I am objective about it. I come from an old-time defender background from way-back, but as I say, I am objective in this matter and my personal feelings will not color that objectivism insofar as we should never find ourselves in the position of being the initiators of aggression for the sake of activity. We should never put ourselves in the position of being morally wrong in that sense. We defend when it is required and we retaliate when required and only when we are in the moral position of not being the initiators of aggression.


2.) When would you apply raider tactics and when would you apply defender tactics? Specifically, will you tolerate random raiding or random defending as a means to keep the NPA active?

I would specifically apply raiding to disrupt an enemy threat and the allies of that enemy in conjunction with defending the victims of enemy aggression at the same time. And when military action is required, I will prosecute such action with all due vigor.

Random Raiding or random Defending serves no objective purpose and random anything should not be tolerated. Military action against random regions be it Raider or Defender in nature and lacking any legitimate objective accomplishes nothing but leaving a trail of victims wherever the NPA goes. Such actions lack any redeeming value and only serve to make our region a pariah and a target of ire across the board.

We cannot produce nor allow a military system in which two competing paradigms work against each other; we need a military system in which both paradigms work together for the same legitimate objectives.


3.) How do you feel about the NPA being 'politicized' as manifested by the existence of the Tyr's Hand Party? Is this a good thing or a bad thing that a political party essentially represent a segment or faction of the NPA?

I think politicization of the NPA by having any political party being a representative of either Raiders, Defenders, various paradigm factions, or the NPA as a whole. As I have said before, making a political party out of the military is a very dangerous proposition because it promotes the military to use its force or inaction as a political tool and weakens not only the military but also the region as a whole. It leads to a potential power-struggle between different segments of the government and region as a whole.

Politicizing the NPA to the point that the NPA becomes a political power in the scheme of things tends to turn war into the primary form of public entertainment in which war becomes and end unto itself in which the military is given work just to keep it from revolting. Such a scheme is more befitting of a savage imperial power, not a civilized democracy.


4.) (modified to apply to me) If the TH party formally endorses you for Delegate, will you accept that endorsement? Will you make their platform policies your policies in terms of military activities and policy in return for such and endorsement?

While I agree in principle with the theory that there is a place for the R/D scheme in the context of the NPA and my policy will reflect that in objective terms, do not seek the endorsement of the Tyr's Hand Party nor would I accept such an endorsement. To accept the endorsement of a political party that is essentially a representative of any faction or entirety of the military smacks of tin-horns and glitteratti; it would be tantamount to being advanced as a candidate for a militaristic system. We are not a militaristic system and certainly not an empire. We are a democracy in which the people rule themselves.
 
Romanoffia:
4.) (modified to apply to me) If the TH party formally endorses you for Delegate, will you accept that endorsement? Will you make their platform policies your policies in terms of military activities and policy in return for such and endorsement?

While I agree in principle with the theory that there is a place for the R/D scheme in the context of the NPA and my policy will reflect that in objective terms, do not seek the endorsement of the Tyr's Hand Party nor would I accept such an endorsement. To accept the endorsement of a political party that is essentially a representative of any faction or entirety of the military smacks of tin-horns and glitteratti; it would be tantamount to being advanced as a candidate for a militaristic system. We are not a militaristic system and certainly not an empire. We are a democracy in which the people rule themselves.
Click to expand...
As a follow up:

If it turned out that TH is representative of the entire military, I'm speculating there would be some friction with your stated goals and theirs (particularly your stance on random raiding/defending). Would you be a 'my way or the highway' type of Commander in Chief? Would you make personnel changes to the command hierarchy if necessary? Or would you try find common ground that satisfies the majority of the NPA?
 
falapatorius:
If it turned out that TH is representative of the entire military
Click to expand...
TH is representative of TH, nothing less, nothing more.

They have a warlike banner, a clearly disrespectful slogan and they act like a bunch of well known raiders trying to teach the rest a lesson about neutrality, but complaining only about defenders, and want to rule themselves as much as possible while keeping the benefits of being hosted by the largest region.

None of that is representative of the NPA.
 
Lennart:
falapatorius:
If it turned out that TH is representative of the entire military
Click to expand...
TH is representative of TH, nothing less, nothing more.

They have a warlike banner, a clearly disrespectful slogan and they act like a bunch of well known raiders trying to teach the rest a lesson about neutrality, but complaining only about defenders, and want to rule themselves as much as possible while keeping the benefits of being hosted by the largest region.

None of that is representative of the NPA.
Click to expand...
I was trying to frame the question in the context of Roman's statement:

To accept the endorsement of a political party that is essentially a representative of any faction or entirety of the military
Click to expand...

Hypothetically speaking, if all members of the military were to join their ranks, you could say that TH would be the de facto military. I was careful not to use 'NPA', as that is the organization they swore an oath to. I'm not questioning TH's right to exist, but I am concerned about their stated goals possibly conflicting with NPA doctrine.
 
Yeah, my point is that if TH is ever representative of the army as a whole, then there wouldn't be an army, but a group of mercenaries whose loyalty would be always questioned.
 
Lennart:
Yeah, my point is that if TH is ever representative of the army as a whole, then there wouldn't be an army, but a group of mercenaries whose loyalty would be always questioned.
Click to expand...
Precisely what I was hinting at. If he chooses to address that hypothetical, I'm curious to see what Roman (or any other Delegate for that matter) would do in that situation.
 
falapatorius:
Romanoffia:
4.) (modified to apply to me) If the TH party formally endorses you for Delegate, will you accept that endorsement? Will you make their platform policies your policies in terms of military activities and policy in return for such and endorsement?

While I agree in principle with the theory that there is a place for the R/D scheme in the context of the NPA and my policy will reflect that in objective terms, do not seek the endorsement of the Tyr's Hand Party nor would I accept such an endorsement. To accept the endorsement of a political party that is essentially a representative of any faction or entirety of the military smacks of tin-horns and glitteratti; it would be tantamount to being advanced as a candidate for a militaristic system. We are not a militaristic system and certainly not an empire. We are a democracy in which the people rule themselves.
Click to expand...
As a follow up:

If it turned out that TH is representative of the entire military, I'm speculating there would be some friction with your stated goals and theirs (particularly your stance on random raiding/defending). Would you be a 'my way or the highway' type of Commander in Chief? Would you make personnel changes to the command hierarchy if necessary? Or would you try find common ground that satisfies the majority of the NPA?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that there would be any friction concerning my goals or TH goals. I understand the concerns of Raiders and Defenders and I fully sympathize with their concerns about the policies of the next Delegate.

Back in the days when we had a Prime Minister and a somewhat fixed Delegacy as an overall system, I was MoD and a General in the NPA. Even that far back I was in favor of applying not only Defender methods applied to regions we were defending, but also applying the tactics and strategies of Raiders, Marauders and Invaders to harass the enemy and the enemy's allies. As you might imagine, that went over like a led balloon in a region that was strictly Defender at that time.

In more recent times I spent a lot of time studying the methodology, organizational structure, tactics and strategies of Gatesville to see how we could use those tactics in time of war against an enemy. That suggestion too went over like a led balloon. But nevertheless, I made a personal detailed study of their methods, not only for the purpose of applying them against enemies in declared war or other actions to defend the security of the region. I do not believe in raiding hapless victims who have done no harm to anyone. By the same token, if some region of jackasses attacks one of our allies, I have no problem with raiding their sorry asses and making their lives generally miserable.

In my theory of warfare, I firmly believe that the goal of warfare is to render the enemy either unwilling or incapable of continuing the fight. That's how you win wars and military actions that were less than declared war. In the event of an actual declared war, not only do I believe you should render an enemy unwilling or incapable of continuing the fight, but following a strategy of annihilation against an enemy that is too dim to give up the fight.

This, of course, requires that we not only use Raiding and Defending as a means to that end, but use them in a unified strategic fashion and in ways that no one has ever tried.

If anyone is worried about keeping the NPA busy, believe me when I say that there is enough trouble out there that directly involves our regional security to keep 20 NPAs busy for a long, long time. This trouble mainly involves what I call 'brush-fire' conflicts that need to be settled before they become a real problem to TNP and her allies.


As far as being a 'my way or the highway' type of Commander in Chief, that's not my style in any venue military or otherwise. Military specialists know their job. It is up to them to justify tactics and strategies when taking action. What I would require of the NPA is adherence to a prime goal of acting in an organized fashion that is to the benefit of the region. I have no problem with the NPA automatically stepping in when required nor do I have any problem with the use of R/D methods when doing so. But when the need arises for the NPA to act in a completely coordinated fashion under the orders of the Delegate (such as declared war) then they should do so. The Delegate, as Commander in Chief of the NPA, should always be in the loop when it comes to military actions as should the MoD and the MoFA.


Would I make personnel changes to the command hierarchy if necessary? Only if I absolutely had to and only with the consultation of the MoD and command structure of the NPA. Disciplining individuals in instances of insubordination, disorderly conduct, disobedience, rogue behavior or other untowardly behavior is largely the purvey of the MoD and the command staff of the NPA chain of command. I would tend to defer to the recommendations of the MoD and support the MoD in actions requiring personnel changes. After all, that is the job of the MoD. But one also has to understand that in all matters, the buck stops with the Delegate as far as the ultimate responsibility. But the MoD is the individual that should handle any personnel issues before they become drastic enough for the Delegate to have to step in. In all instances, I would try to find the common ground that keeps the morale of the NPA at a high level. So far, I have not seen any issues that would arise to the level of needing the Delegate to step in and I hope such a situation never arises.



Addendum:

Lennart:

TH is representative of TH, nothing less, nothing more.

They have a warlike banner, a clearly disrespectful slogan and they act like a bunch of well known raiders trying to teach the rest a lesson about neutrality, but complaining only about defenders, and want to rule themselves as much as possible while keeping the benefits of being hosted by the largest region.

None of that is representative of the NPA.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't classify the slogan as disrespectful given the mythological reference of the Norse deity Tyr and Tyr feeding his hand to the Fenrir Wolf. I think it's rather clever in terms of metaphor. In purely mythological terms, the whole image is symbolic of sacrifice and self-restraint. As far as I have seen, the Raider element hasn't done anything that is dishonorable in terms of their service to the security of the region.

I view, in objective terms, Raiding and Defending as complimentary tools to a larger strategy of regional security. It's like the difference between Cavalry and Mounted Rifles - Cavalry sacks the enemy on the field of battle and raids the enemy's interests and Mounted Rifles move in, dismount and defend a position. They might hate each other as 'rivals' in a common goal, but they are equally needed on the field of battle.
 
Thanx for the thorough answers to the questions Roman. A little bit of history, diplomacy, and minimal evasion. :clap: Didn't quote the post tho, too damn long.

Your theory of warfare brings to mind:

Art of War:

"Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack"

or

Book of Five Rings:

"You should not have any special fondness for a particular weapon, or anything else, for that matter. Too much is the same as not enough. Without imitating anyone else, you should have as much weaponry as suits you."
 
R3n's campaign thread introduces the idea of a home affairs revamping the forum community to be more open and actively recruiting folks in the region to participate in the forum government.

Home Affairs

The North Pacific, does not need recruitment to bring nations to the region: we have 5,000 of them, and new ones keep coming without effort. Effort is required, however, to tap the potential present in this enormous pool of talent and workforce. During my delegacy, my team and I will emphasize this effort through a two-fold plan: 1) game-side recruitment; and 2) forum-side naturalization.

On the first front, we will engage the nations that are present in the region though all the means the game makes available to us: welcoming telegram, region-wide or other mass telegrams, world factbook entry, dispatches, and regional messaging board. We already make use of most of these communication avenues, but the content will be redesigned with a heavy focus towards advertising the forum government. Nations will be telegrammed a biweekly bulletin of government activity, monthly Ministry-specific recruitment campaigns, as well as more personal and targeted invites by myself and my Ministers.

On the second front, we will take measures to make the forum experience friendlier for newcomers and encourage their involvement in the government. We will rewrite the welcoming material and revisit the organization of the entry forums. We will create a welcoming team, to act as mentors for new members while they are still learning the ropes of the forum and government.

We will also expand the Executive Government with the creation of the Executive Staff. The goal is to address the current situation, where the Executive Government is relatively opaque to new members, and the opportunities to get involved are relatively limited. The Executive Staff will be a civil service of sorts, open to all members. Those who join will be assigned to specific Ministries, and assist the Ministers in implementing the agenda of their department. The Executive Staff mimics and expands upon existing services within Ministries, such as the Diplomatic Corps, that have proven successful in the past; those will be integrated in this new structure
Click to expand...

I really like this idea, if elected would you impliment a similar program?

And what would you say to someone mulling over you or another candidate? What would you say to sway them? What do you offer that stands you apart from R3n, Kiwi, and Mall?
 
Roman - you will have my vote if you get the court to settle the matter regarding TD. A review request that has taken 3 months and going to resolve.

I will definitely not vote for you if this matter continues to languish in the courts.

This is as serious a matter as can be brought before the court and there appears to be no direction or sense of urgency from the court. That's very disappointing.
 
falapatorius:
Thanx for the thorough answers to the questions Roman. A little bit of history, diplomacy, and minimal evasion. :clap: Didn't quote the post tho, too damn long.

Your theory of warfare brings to mind:

Art of War:

"Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack"

or

Book of Five Rings:

"You should not have any special fondness for a particular weapon, or anything else, for that matter. Too much is the same as not enough. Without imitating anyone else, you should have as much weaponry as suits you."
Click to expand...

The quote from Book of Five Rings is essentially true in any endeavor, be it war, business or politics. :yes:



PaulWallLibertarian42:
R3n's campaign thread introduces the idea of a home affairs revamping the forum community to be more open and actively recruiting folks in the region to participate in the forum government.

Home Affairs

The North Pacific, does not need recruitment to bring nations to the region: we have 5,000 of them, and new ones keep coming without effort. Effort is required, however, to tap the potential present in this enormous pool of talent and workforce. During my delegacy, my team and I will emphasize this effort through a two-fold plan: 1) game-side recruitment; and 2) forum-side naturalization.

On the first front, we will engage the nations that are present in the region though all the means the game makes available to us: welcoming telegram, region-wide or other mass telegrams, world factbook entry, dispatches, and regional messaging board. We already make use of most of these communication avenues, but the content will be redesigned with a heavy focus towards advertising the forum government. Nations will be telegrammed a biweekly bulletin of government activity, monthly Ministry-specific recruitment campaigns, as well as more personal and targeted invites by myself and my Ministers.

On the second front, we will take measures to make the forum experience friendlier for newcomers and encourage their involvement in the government. We will rewrite the welcoming material and revisit the organization of the entry forums. We will create a welcoming team, to act as mentors for new members while they are still learning the ropes of the forum and government.

We will also expand the Executive Government with the creation of the Executive Staff. The goal is to address the current situation, where the Executive Government is relatively opaque to new members, and the opportunities to get involved are relatively limited. The Executive Staff will be a civil service of sorts, open to all members. Those who join will be assigned to specific Ministries, and assist the Ministers in implementing the agenda of their department. The Executive Staff mimics and expands upon existing services within Ministries, such as the Diplomatic Corps, that have proven successful in the past; those will be integrated in this new structure
Click to expand...

I really like this idea, if elected would you impliment a similar program?

And what would you say to someone mulling over you or another candidate? What would you say to sway them? What do you offer that stands you apart from R3n, Kiwi, and Mall?
Click to expand...

I like R3n's Home Policies. But there is one problem I see with it. Actually a few problems.

The first is that expanding the government by creating an 'Executive Staff' or any other bureaucratic expansion has always proved somewhat of a failure in the past. We don't don't need a duplication of services as per an Executive Staff that "mimics and expands upon existing services within Ministries, etc." It's just another level of bureaucratic rigmarole that will never get 'fleshed out', and a wast of resources through duplication of services. The more logical thing is to make sure that the existing ministries are properly administered and appropriately staffed so that they can do their jobs themselves. No need for yet another layer of government that duplicated already existing functions and services. It is not efficient. We simply don't have the manpower to literally duplicate the entire government in parallel, nor would we want to duplicate it in parallel.

The other problem I see with R3n's policy as quoted is the methodology of communicating with citizens of the region by sending bi-weekly TGs to nations, etc.,,,.

Simply re-writing welcome telegrams to new nations is just doing more of the same thing that is already somewhat ineffective and is at best a zero-sum-game in practical terms. Having been MoC in the past (I've been just about everything else except Delegate and Vice Delegate) I have some experience in how to capture people's attention and engaging them in the whole process that is The North Pacific.

Nothing short of having a constant presence of the Delegate on the RMB (and the same for the MoC and everyone in that ministry) will suffice. What I will do is personally engage nations on the RMB and directly on a one-on-one basis wherever possible or needed rather than to rely on TGs and other periodic communications alone. I know how elaborate plans like composing regular publications usually turn out - they start out fine but they fade out into a whimper and in the interval become rather perfunctory, dry and uninteresting.

You get nations interested in joining the forum and staying involved not only by perfunctory and periodic communications in their in-boxes (which most people don't really pay much attention to for the most part) but by actively engaging them. When you actively engage people in a personal and lively manner, they get to know you as a real person and not some remote and impersonal entity called a 'Delegate'. If anyone can talk up a storm and get people to interact, it's certainly me. I run a number of message boards and such not related to NS and I know how to market ideas and engage people in conversation, not only with me but with each other (with each other being the key process here).

Once you entice people to interact with each other on the RMB, they will realize that the RMB is limited in scope as per personal interactions between TNP residents and citizens. When that happens (and it will) the forum needs to be simultaneously marketed as a more efficient and user friendly format than the RMB.

I view the RMB as a marketing tool, not a be-all and end-all for engaging TNP citizens and keeping them informed. And to do this the Delegate has to be active not only in the regional header, but in the ongoing conversation that the RMB is. Believe me when I say that I can get people onto and become active on the forum. I know a few things about product and service marketing - and the regional forum is a product and a service. All we have to do is to use the RMB as a tool in a simple marketing strategy.

With all due respect to Kiwi's, they are fine in theory and principle, but they will run into problems when reduced to practice. Why? Because it is essentially the same strategy and practice that has been used in the past to no lasting effect because it is the same thing that has always been done which leads to no lasting increase in activity. Again, the only activity duplicating government ministries in the form of an Executive Staff is the activity caused by duplicate paperwork. And duplication of services will ultimately cause conflict between multiple agents of the government doing duplicate administrative staff jobs. Eventually either the 'Executive Staff' or the actual ministries will slack off because there is always someone else to do their respective jobs. Ultimately it results in everyone slacking off and nothing gets done, or one or two people end up doing everyone's job but their own. With government expansion we end up with, to use an old expression, too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. A heavy bureaucracy always collapses under its own weight.

I remember a few instances in which our government in TNP had so many functionary positions that in periods of general inactivity, the government literally screeched to a halt and could not function at all according to anything resembling a constitutional mandate. Increasing the bureaucracy with new and duplicate positions will result in the same dysfunction should an even lesser period of inactivity (in comparison to what has happened in the past) happen again (which it will from time to time).


"And what would you say to someone mulling over you or another candidate? What would you say to sway them? What do you offer that stands you apart from R3n, Kiwi, and Mall?"

I would say that I tend to be, or try to be, a minimalist. I like to avoid over-complicating matters such as administration and government. My view of expanding bureaucracies and government is that too much bureaucracy and government is a royal pain in the arse that serves no other purpose than to make 'busy work' in multiple copies. I know how to get things done and how to get people to cooperate for objective goals. I've served in nearly every function and position of government in TNP and have always been a citizen of TNP. My loyalties are not divided with any other region and have never been divided with any other region. I know how things work in TNP, and more important, I know what things do not work. I do not like to re-take ground, to use a military analogy.

If I can run a regiment/battalion sized unit in RL military efficiency, I can run the TNP efficiently (and make it entertaining for all involved). My sense of duty and obligation is firmly centered on TNP and TNP alone. I'm not afraid to take on as much as I can and accomplish the goal of improving our region and leaving it in a better state than when I became Delegate. I'm hands-on in what I do to improve things, but also hands-off where things are working just fine.





punk d:
Roman - you will have my vote if you get the court to settle the matter regarding TD. A review request that has taken 3 months and going to resolve.

I will definitely not vote for you if this matter continues to languish in the courts.

This is as serious a matter as can be brought before the court and there appears to be no direction or sense of urgency from the court. That's very disappointing.
Click to expand...

We're getting to your request as we speak. I understand the time-sensitive urgency of the situation. We will get an answer to you ASAP on this matter.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
You courty types still havent got Punk Ds answers :P
Click to expand...
That's because of all the requests for review that have been presented to the court, Punk D's is a hum-dinger because of the contradictory elements in the law of which he is requesting review.

Ever notice that I am the only candidate for Delegate who doesn't end sentences with a preposition? :P
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
What is your opinion of private cattle grazing on public TNP property?
Click to expand...
I think we need more cattle grazing on public property. After all, it is public property and therefore, if someone owns grazing rights to that public property, then they should have at it with the cows.

To take this a bit further, I don't think that the government should own any property. After all, any property the government owns was looted from private property owners in the first place, and probably at the point of a gun.

The government should also be banned from taking private property for the benefit of 'the common good' because taking property for the sake of the 'common good' is still stealing from one person who worked for said property or owns said property and giving to to some lazy bastard who didn't work for it.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top