(06-14-2019, 09:27 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: How has it moved beyond a simple label? The way I see it, the argument goes as follows:

• We agreed that we have a set of principles, namely democracy and a respect for self-determination.
  
• We believe that raiding innocent regions violates those principles.
  
• We agree that defending is a natural consequence of our foreign policy interest in upholding those principles.
  
• We agree that raiding regions with heinous ideologies and bigoted beliefs is an acceptable violation of other region’s’ sovereignty, since they aren’t at all innocent.
  

Unless we’re questioning those basic principles, what’s the point in line item votes on each of them? Shouldn’t the resolution suffice and make our work simpler?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 

Thanks for the response. It is a good summary (as was Sandaoguo's). My take is this: initially, the whole proposal began as a sort of PR thing "let's change our stance and it will help our foreign relations;" now, nearly all of the conversation is about what does and doesn't count as part of the defender ideology (admittedly, many of the people driving this conversation are not the original proponents). Maybe it is just me though; perhaps the conversation has always been deeper than PR. Either way, the whole thing is gaining more significance each day in my mind. And the more I see it as significant, the more I feel a single proposal, a "take it or leave it" sort of thing, is not the correct way of going about this issue. However, I am pleased at Sandaoguo's more recent statement about giving things consideration. If dialogue is constructive, then a single "take it or leave it" proposal won't be as problematic as it present sits in my mind.

That reminds me, below are the two things which I think are worth doing (with a disclaimer, while these are genuinely my only sticking points at the moment, I can't guarantee that further debate won't make others arise). Feel free to agree, disagree, compromise, or ignore them.

1. Having the resolution specifically affirm the right of people to disagree - I am happy to leave this as an amendment to the resolution once it passes

2. Having the resolution be non-constitutional. I don't see how it is necessary for the resolution to be a constitutional law. It can just as easily be a non-constitutional one. If all of this is about setting up a military alignment which reflects TSP, then the alignment should be able to be repealed if a majority thinks so. I completely agree that it is within the pro-defenders rights to make it a constitutional law, I just really don't see the point. All the other constitutional laws in the region seem to either be about the mechanics of making policy or they need to be a constitutional law because of some requirement in the Charter. In saying all of this, I am open to changing my mind, but I need reasons why it should be constitutional rather than just an argument that it is allowed to be so.