Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: November 5460
Next month in: 01:36:19
Server time: 10:23:40, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: Gov.0005.2595

Details

Submitted by[?]: 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)

Status[?]: passed

Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: August 2596

Description[?]:

This shall be a non-binding (as in it wont force parties that don't like it to follow it) resolution.

All parties who sign this resolution (vote yes) officially declare their support for the idea of secession from the Federal Commonwealth while not necessarily agreeing on the requirements for the process.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date06:50:39, June 23, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageOOC:
This serves both an IC and OOC purpose.

IC it will ad some flavour and make things more interesting.
OOC it will allow everyone who supports it to be known to each other.

Since Secession is a process that is highly individualistic, that is most of the time the case depends on circumstances, rather then being a normal process I've not included anything beyond the parties that vote yes support it to some extent or in at least some cases.

Date06:58:25, June 23, 2008 CET
FromAnti-Federalists of Free Sekowo
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageDue to the fact that our party is mainly immigrants, we cannot support this bill. It is utterly heinous, and, unfortunately, we aren't surprised that the ISP would propose it.

Date07:07:30, June 23, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageWe are not the ISP.
The ISP was an offshoot that gained prominence by taking advantage of our parties internal turmoil.

OOC:
ISP was just to add flavor to my history.
Also, I don't think immigrants would necessarily be against secession, I mean I think that Kosovars who live say in the area I do would'nt be opposed to the Cascadian Independence Movement.

Date07:15:10, June 23, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageSo, this bill is in favour of allowing territories to secede from Sekowo and become independent nations?

Date07:18:58, June 23, 2008 CET
FromAnti-Federalists of Free Sekowo
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageOOC: I agree, however, the idea is that many came to this land instead of their homes. In times of old (i.e. American Revolution) the immigrants came for the land. Now, the small farming is much less so. Those immigrants who joined the AFFS did so because they believed in Sekowo, not in Sekowan land. They hold dear the libertarian principles. They would certainly find themselves far distant from Socialist revolutionaries, being a much more pacifistic movement, but an attack upon their homes would probably mobilize a force to be reckoned with. We are fundamentally opposed to an official party militia, but could probably whip up a fighting force PDQ in case of attack.
IC: We are pacifistic in that we find war a great evil. But war isn't the greatest of evils, and we will be prepared to defend our families and homes against any incursion by secessionist forces.

Date07:24:53, June 23, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageNPP:
Essentially yes, it's meant just to show that (those of us who do) support the idea, just not necessarily in every situation.
For instance I don't support say the seccession of the League of the South, but I do support the Independence of Vermont or Cascadia, essentially so long as it is going to be free and democratic.

AFFS:
Got ya, had'nt thought of it historically.

Date07:29:02, June 23, 2008 CET
FromAnti-Federalists of Free Sekowo
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageOOC: I'm a History and MESA major. It's what I do. :)

Date07:30:30, June 23, 2008 CET
FromAnti-Federalists of Free Sekowo
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageOOC: By the way, the ISP thing was shameless propaganda, not my actual thoughts in RL.

Date07:33:34, June 23, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageWe favour self-determination in most contexts. We shall support this bill in a very non-binding manner.

Date07:36:50, June 23, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageOOC:
Yeah, I thought so.
Nor worries, I'm actually surprised it's not done more often to be honest.

Date07:39:42, June 23, 2008 CET
FromAnti-Federalists of Free Sekowo
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageOOC: What? I thought this was political simulation! Well, with something as fantastical as no name-calling I'm not sure that I can support this game anymore. (Just kidding. <--Too many have dropped off for me not to add that.)

Date09:09:15, June 23, 2008 CET
FromSekowan Independent Party
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageWe cannot support any bill that would push our country to war. Also, we are in agreement with AFFS. Any incursion by secessionist forces will be met as an invasion by a foreign nation. In the unity of Sekowo, we find strength. In strength, we find protection. And given that there are already plenty of wars to go around...

Date09:10:26, June 23, 2008 CET
FromSekowan Independent Party
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageOOC: Correction on above. First sentence should read "We cannot support any bill that would push our country _TOWARD_ war." Yaknow, 3AM postings shouldn't be so hard to properly communicate... lol

Date09:13:49, June 23, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageWar is the result of forces who do not wish to go through the proper channels to do so.

Secession from the FCS can be, and indeed in the vast majority of cases (excluding the possibility a authoritarian party somehow got a majority of seats) meant to be peaceful.

When, how and in what cases secession is the right thing to do can and indeed would/will be a topic for that time, as this purposefully does not say such.

Date04:53:28, June 24, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageWe are somewhat shocked that the Socialists, which generally oppose local governance, would support secession.

Date07:42:28, June 24, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageThe DSP is based on Libertarianism (as in the real kind), which stems from anarcho-socialism.
We are'nt against local governments, we simply feel that freedom, the environment and economic regulation can only be ensured on a national level.

Date08:05:18, June 24, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageSo why support secessionism. That would prevent such matters from being administered on national levels.

Date08:12:05, June 24, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageBecause we support self-determination as sovereignty lies in the peoples collective will for the state to exist.

Date08:15:05, June 24, 2008 CET
FromAnti-Federalists of Free Sekowo
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageLibertarianism my foot. How much have you tried to get the government involved in things? I quote Dean Russell (OOC: Many of us call ourselves "liberals," And it is true that the word "liberal" once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward, subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trademark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word "libertarian.")
You are always shoving the government's nose up the people. Socially, perhaps you are a libertarian, but only socially. And that's just one facet. Socialism is the opposite of Libertarianism. They drifted apart long, long ago.

Date08:18:06, June 24, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageOOC:
Libertarianism has historically referred to ideas supporting political and social freedom but encouraging economic regulation and direct democratic socialism.

Also, I don't call myself a liberal, since I use the international terms, not the American ones and I don't fit all the characteristics of American liberalism.

Date08:19:38, June 24, 2008 CET
FromAnti-Federalists of Free Sekowo
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageOOC: Tell me where you found that. I'm sorry, but Libertarianism is nigh unto anarchism, not communism. They don't mesh.

Date08:28:04, June 24, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageOOC:
Well I suppose check Wikipdeia, since it's the easiest source, look under Libertarian Socialism, since the American/Neo-Libertarians have taken over the general page.

Oh, and technically the result of Communism is supposed to be the dissolution of the state and the creation of a classless collective society, not that I particularly think Communism works.

Date08:59:07, June 24, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
Message[[Libertarian SOCIALISM is a Libertarian brand of Socialism, not traditional or "historical" Libertariasm]]

Date09:23:41, June 24, 2008 CET
FromAnti-Federalists of Free Sekowo
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageAgain, need I cite history? Paine could never call you a Libertarian. It would be preposterous to do so. Granted, Paine might disagree with me right now, but I do think if we enter into a social contract, we are obliged to keep our end of it to the best of our ability.

Date09:35:05, June 24, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageThe term libertarian was first used by groups that split from anarcho-socialism, did they call themselves Libertarians all the time, probably not, but it was one of these groups that the term Libertarian was first applied to.
It was'nt until the 1970's that Libertarianism came to mean small-state free market unregulated capitalism.

Date09:54:55, June 24, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
Message[[According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term "Libertarian" was first used by William Belsham, a historian and political writer, in 1789, who used it in the context of "One who holds the doctrine of the freedom of the will, as opposed to that of necessity. Opposed to necessitarian."

In the context of "One who approves of or advocates liberty", it was first used in 1878 by Sir John Robery Seeley, also a historian, and a notable Christian who also favored sciencific research.

Neither of these were anarchists nor socialists, and the terms have absolutely nothing to do with socailism.

Libertarian in the specialized sense of "A person who believes the role of the government should be limited to upholding individual rights, and who therefore opposes government regulation of economic or social affairs; an anti-statist" was first used in 1920 (or so) in the United States. Again, it was extremely anti-socialist ("anti-statist") even at that early date. You could argue anarchist, but it's rediculous to tie libertarianism with socialism.


Where are you getting your historical facts, DSP? Socialist pamphlets? There seems to be absolutely no historical basis for your claims.]]

Date10:08:32, June 24, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageI mean in a political way, lots of words were used first way before they were applied to politics.

And everything in the united states in regards to political terminology has been different then what the rest of the world uses for most of the twentieth century and continuing into this century.

If you ask an American, Canadian or someone from one of the countries of the Western Hemisphere what Libertarianism is you are likely to get the response describing American/Neo-Libertarianism, however it's a good bet that if you ask someone in France, Germany or Europe in general you're likely to get the Socialist version description.

Honestly I'm not sure any parties use the original term anymore in their names, but Libertarianism did'nt always refer to what the American version is.
Actually I suppose the only difference is that one uses unregulated capitalism and the other uses voluntary collectivist socialism when it comes to economics, apart form that they are pretty much the same.


Oh, and I've never read a political pamphlet in my life.

Date10:14:50, June 24, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageForgot to add this;

"The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Djacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used in order to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as inconsistent. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism actually predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States."

Date11:17:54, June 24, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageAnd your source?

If you paid attention to my post, you'll notice that libertarian ORIGIANLLY meant "free", as "Free Will" (as opposed to compulsion). Then it became tied to liberty in general, ie, FREEDOM. Eventually, and as it was FIRST used in any sort of political context in the US, it became tied to being opposed to government intervention: ie, FREEDOM.

This is a normal and natural linguistic progression, and SOCIALISM occurs at NO step in the process.

Date11:38:47, June 24, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageBTW, your source is obviously incorrect in at least some particulars, as William Belsham described himself as a Libertarian (with a capital L!) In his "Essays, philosophical, historical and literary", he discusses the difference between a Libertarian and a Necessarian.

And, to white, Djacque did not call himself a "Libertarian", but rather a "libertaire"; he was not writing in English, but in French. In French, "libertaire" and "libertarien" are two different words. Djacque used the term "libertaire" in opposition with "libral", which is the French equivalent of Libertarian, and which predates the term "libertaire". Either way you look at it, "liberal/libertarian" was earlier used in opposition to socialism before it was ever used in favour of it.

Date11:43:58, June 24, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Gov.0005.2595
MessageOh, and FYI: "libertairien" means the same thing in French that it means in English. "Libertaire", on the other hand, is so uncommon today that it is not included in my 2000 French>English dictionary (approximately 340,000 entries). Libertaire has never been used in written English (or if it has, the Oxford English Dictionary was never told about it), undermining arguments that the word "libertarian" is derived from the French "libertaire".

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 244

no
    

Total Seats: 168

abstain
  

Total Seats: 135


Random fact: There is a phpBB forum dedicated to Particracy. Please click the Forum link in the top game menu. Additions to the game, suggestions and discussion is held there so get involved. http://forum.particracy.net/

Random quote: "With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day." - Martin Luther King Jr.

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 82