+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: Charter Ammendment - Ideals and Principles (/thread-608.html)
RE: Charter Ammendment - Ideals and Principles - sandaoguo - 06-12-2014
I still massively prefer the version I seconded. I don't think it really comes down to "degrees," because there are different goals being sought here.
My concern is that the Assembly isn't telling people that they're not allowed to advocate for something, or that one position is the only acceptable and reasonable position. I want people to be able to advocate for TSP being defender, and I want people to advocate for the opposite. In other words, I want TSP to remain a democracy with freedom of expression, and not have the Charter abused to silence ideas some people don't like.
Saying that TSP "shall make no law respecting an establishment of political or military alignment or ideology" is less preferable than saying we are open to all political and military alignments and ideologies. Again, it's a positive vs. negative issue. But it's better than saying that TSP rejects altogether people advocating for a political or military alignment or ideology. It would prevent somebody from pushing for a law defining TSP as a defender/raider/imperialist/Independent region, while allowing people to advocate defender/raider/imperialist/Independent policies in government.
So, if people prefer that over the version that's already been seconded three times, then okay, that's the next best option. But I still favor the other version.
RE: Charter Ammendment - Ideals and Principles - Tsunamy - 06-12-2014
I could be wrong, but I think we are looking at the same goal. We want to create a space where some can suggest different ideas, but won't establish laws to any direction. So while people may advocate actions from different ideologies, we aren't going to throw ourselves at either side.
That's why I extended the first half to clearly state that people of all alignments are welcome.
I think anything in this regard with turn the focus from "Where should the region be?" to "What should the region do?" And I think such a change is really important to arguing ideas and that people, as has been suggested previously.
RE: Charter Ammendment - Ideals and Principles - Unibot - 06-12-2014
How do we prevent the government from pursuing some sort of "political", "military" "ideology"? How is the government supposed to run without a framework to make a political judgement?
I think part of this debate may stem from a serious divide over what constitutes an "ideology". Some people here seem to think their ideologies don't count as ideologies!
I still support Tsu's thirded draft, over the new language or his old language. It's the one proposal here that actually gets at the heart of openness and promoting diversity - without dropping TSP into a vat of philosophical questions about what it means to be ideological, what is "in a region's interest" etc.
RE: Charter Ammendment - Ideals and Principles - Tsunamy - 06-12-2014
Well ... that wasn't exactly my goal there Uni. My goal was an attempt to have us a say, as a region, we're opening to welcoming people with specific ideologies, but we're operating on a different plane where we're not getting trapped between this R/D dichotomy.
RE: Charter Ammendment - Ideals and Principles - Belschaft - 06-12-2014
I'm happy with your new wording Tsu. The wording matches the objective of clause six, which was to move beyond this endless R/D nonsense.
I highly doubt your going to be able to persuade Unibot though, as he remains fundamentally dedicated to trying to turn this into a defender region. Your not going to get him to support legislation that prohibits that.
RE: Charter Ammendment - Ideals and Principles - sandaoguo - 06-12-2014
(06-12-2014, 07:49 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I highly doubt your going to be able to persuade Unibot though, as he remains fundamentally dedicated to trying to turn this into a defender region. Your not going to get him to support legislation that prohibits that.
Nor does Tsu's proposal prohibit it. Unibot will be able to advocate defender policies in government. He can't define the region as defender and kick out non-defenders, though, which I don't think he wants to do anyways.
RE: Charter Ammendment - Ideals and Principles - Belschaft - 06-12-2014
To the contrary, the language explicitly forbids such.
RE: Charter Ammendment - Ideals and Principles - sandaoguo - 06-12-2014
I'll just repost what I posted above:
Quote:Saying that TSP "shall make no law respecting an establishment of political or military alignment or ideology" is less preferable than saying we are open to all political and military alignments and ideologies. Again, it's a positive vs. negative issue. But it's better than saying that TSP rejects altogether people advocating for a political or military alignment or ideology. It would prevent somebody from pushing for a law defining TSP as a defender/raider/imperialist/Independent region, while allowing people to advocate defender/raider/imperialist/Independent policies in government.
RE: Charter Ammendment - Ideals and Principles - Belschaft - 06-12-2014
I don't believe any version of the language proposed such.
RE: Charter Ammendment - Ideals and Principles - Unibot - 06-13-2014
Tsu's Third Proposal
Quote:6. Openness; this region seeks to remain categorically open in regard to any prescribed military ideology or alignment, welcoming all citizens and officials with loyalty to the region.
Tsu's Fourth Proposal
Quote:6. Openness; this region seeks to remain categorically open to all ideas and welcoming of all who seek citizenship within the region, whilst the region shall make no law respecting an establishment of political or military alignment or ideology.
I still remain in favour of the Third Proposal over the Fourth.
The Fourth leaves it unclear how TSP is supposed to make decisions - if it can't base any decisions based on any idea, any value, it can't be "independentist", unlike what Belschaft is arguing.
In my opinion, The South Pacific's executives should make decisions based on a holistic, balanced consideration of different priorities.
[Image: P8Riv6p.png]
How does this stay in tune with The South Pacific's culture?
How do we gain/lose from this?
Is this in keeping with our region's values? The right thing to do?
Is this within our legal responsibilities?
A judgement should try to balance all of these priorities. The reason why I find independentism is an ideology is because it has these silent assumptions about what TSP should prioritize (i.e., strategic interests) over everything else. The executive in my opinion should be taking all of these priorities and saying, "how can we satisfy as much of these considerations as we possibly can?", because that's the basis for smarter, better governance.
You can call this zealous, radical defenderism, all you like. But I don't think you can run a stable, responsible government without balancing different priorities like this in an efficient, pragmatic manner.