It’s only a matter of time before Dvorak Uncensored gets a notice like this (well, not the nation building parts — at least not yet), the way things are going in this country:
Forbidden by the Department of Homeworld Security
This website was found to be in contradiction to HR 3162 (FREEDOM Act), § 15b (Providing Material Assistance to Terrorists). Infractions include:
* The establishment of virtual “nation states” which promote values inconsistent with those of the government (Section 4(g)).
* The promotion, discussion, and demonstration of alternative systems of government, which imply explicitly or otherwise that the current system of government is imperfect (Section 99(a)).
* Use of the word “freedom” without proper authorization (Section 24(b)).
This is actually a page from a free, online simulation game, NationStates, where you can “Build a nation and run it according to your own warped political ideals. Create a Utopian paradise for society’s less fortunate or a totalitarian corporate police state. Care for your people or deliberately oppress them. Join the United Nations or remain a rogue state. It’s really up to you.”
It’s based on a book called Jennifer Government which sounds intriguing.
Welcome to paradise! The world is run by American corporations (except for a few deluded holdouts like the French); taxes are illegal; employees take the last names of the companies they work for; the Police and the NRA are publicly-traded security firms; and the U.S. government only investigates crimes it can bill for.
I wonder how many ultraconservatives would actually consider that a wetdream come true!
*laughs a little at Paul*
Anyhow, moving on. Jennifer Government is a very good read. It’s not exactly politcal (the corporations don’t run anything any worse than governments did) but its more about people, greed, and such.
I would recomend it to most people.
This is a pretty old story. I’ve had the book for a few years and played the game too.
It’s not exactly politcal
So anyone who doesn’t join the UN is by definition a rogue state?
Paul,
Since when is this site been about “hard-hitting investigative journalism?” We post links to stuff we find interesting, even it is occasionally older (we and most readers may not have seen it before).
BTW, with all the news stories and editorials about reductions in freedoms being taken away in increasing number by the current administration, how exactly have our freedoms increased? Or have they slipped away so slowly and for such “good reasons” that you haven’t noticed (such as the fear we now must deal with regarding who is watching what we are reading that may be deemed subversive, just to pick something at random)? Don’t worry. Be happy. We’ve done the noticing for you.
Now that the G’ould are defeated, is General O’Neill is cracking the whip down on the internet?
It’s amazing how the same people that belong to the NRA, and fight so strongly against gun licensing, are the same people that are so quick to give up so many other freedoms under our current government. I just don’t understand the right-wingers that are not the power elite, their behavior just doesn’t make sense.
“i presume you’re in favor of speech licensing as well.”
You cannot kill someone with spech. Nobody is harmed when you use speech irresponsibly.
The second amendment also makes clear that arms should be “well regulated”.
This is a enormas freedom to be able to put our opinions wrong or right on international forums for the world to ponder it does not get any more free then that.
amendment also makes clear that arms should be “well regulated”.
It’s a well regulated militia, ie well trained.
Paul,
Wasn’t putting words in your mouth. The quotes around “good reasons” were more generic quotes to indicate what others have used as an excuse or reason. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I’m 51 so I remember relishing watching each day as Nixon and friends got theirs during the Watergate hearings while feeling sad at their attempts to subvert our freedoms with enemies lists, etc. For the record, I am not at all happy with a lot of the attempts by Democrats to restrict a number of freedoms either. It just seems that — especially with this Bush — we see staunch Libertarians and old line, small government/no-interference-in-our-personal-lives Republicans complain about what is being eroded on a seemingly daily basis by those who have taken over that party. While you and I and everyone else is able to enjoy all those things you mention, there are many others which are being chiseled away. Reporters asked Bush in his news conference about his use of the NSA to spy in this country, going around the restrictions and safeguards put into place by Congress. Is these kinds of gathering of powers in the Executive good for the nation? Bush seemed angry at being asked this. Perhaps, being generous, Bush will safeguard against going beyond the narrow limits within which he says this power will be used. But what about Presidents and heads of government agencies to come?
The erosions I speak of currently are at the fringes for the most part. Many are fears about Supreme Court nominees who want to restrict freedoms rather than expand them or leave them as they are. But as a commenter on another post said, quoting Caesar, when you turn over your rights and freedoms to the government, even for patriotic reasons or out of fear (as we are doing because of terrorists) what will prevent the leaders now or in the future from keeping them or using them to their own purposes?
A few months ago, I read an excellent editorial that listed a large number of areas in which we have seen errosions or reductions of our freedoms over the last decade. Seeing them all listed together was quite an eye opener. I’m trying to find it (don’t remember who wrote it) and will post it when I do.
Freedom is, like all that´s been discussed, an human invention.
Freedom is what we call the “space” out of rules, that we, as human beings, impose on each other, so we can live together as a society.
Freedom is a continuum, but an evolving one. 18 and 19 Century americans would be 99% in favor of the right to bear arms. Today I´ll bet that it´s 50/50 or less. The “liberty” to defend ourselves is shifting from one vision of the world to another vision.
It´s all about what we consider important at a determined period in Human society. Today I´m much more concerned that this post will be read by a lot of people and some of those will, undoubtedly, think that my words will pose some threat to some establishment, even bland as they are. And some that are in a position to do something about it, are gradually getting to do something…
Thanks anyway for being able to say this…4 the time being.
>>never mind that we’re orders of magnitude ‘free-er’ than we were even twenty years ago.
I was alive in 1985. How was I “orders of magnitute” less ” freeer” back then?
Back then I could change jobs more easily because I wasn’t so much in frear of losign my health insurance. Back then couples were more free to live off of one-income because housing wasn’t so absurdly high. Back then the government needed a court order to tap my phone!