| Charter Ammendment - Ideals and Principles |
Hear, hear.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific
How is "independence", devoid of ideology? It is an ideology! Furthermore, should we really be just subscribing to your ideology willy-nilly, Belschaft? Our region has suffered greatly internally since we've unofficially adopted it under yours and Hileville's governments.
I think TSP should be proud to consider ideas, even hold them up. We've held up the ideas of liberty, equality, tolerance and democracy - these are part in parcel of an ideology. It's only in the military alignment do we have disagreements over the ill-fated status quo - and it STILL is an ideology!! Likewise, how can we consider liberty, equality and tolerance as virtues, but also deny any "military ideology"? Do we not care about acting with liberty, equality and tolerance outside of the region?
There is nothing "unofficial" about independence. It is the official military doctrine of this region, as enshrined in the Code of Laws.
Time and time again this idiotic debate is forced upon the region, and time and time again the region has made it clear that it wants no part in R/D. And yet you insist on having this same fight every month. How many threads have been derailed by Unibot insisting that we become defenders? And how many times has the idea been rejected? This debate was settled a long time ago, and yet we are literally forced to keep having it. Because Unibot will not let it go. I am literally sick of this. It is time to put this nonsense to end, make it explicitly clear that TSP is an independent region - as our laws already establish - and that we are not going to become defenders. Nothing about this stops you from defending, but hopefully it will finally make you stop trying to force us to do so. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Support.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
Would it appease anyone to swap out "independent" with something toward regionalist?
I mean -- I have no opinion on the R/D debate -- except when it comes at behest of the region. Our alliances and protections should not come from some preconceived notions we pull from other areas of NS, but from what is best for TSP community. Maybe that's independent, regionalist or isolationist, but this region needs to be a priority. Not any other way around.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
It might appease Unibot, but it would be rather facetious. The military posisition that we've formally adopted since 2012 is referred to by our own laws as independent, and the common terminology for it is such. Allowing our military position to be defined according to those who oppose it would be absurd, and would imply an acknowledgement that Unibots definition of independent (one rejected by everyone who calls themselves independent) is valid. It's not.
The principle of rejecting R/D and determining military policy according to regional interest is, to put it simply, called independence. Calling it something else would be silly. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
The problem really stems from Defenders arguments that anything that is not defender is raider, and, therefore, the spawn of the devil.
In my opinion, R/D are, when brought down to the basics, both exactly the same. The only small difference is, defenders "raid" raider-held regions to keep raiders from holding them... or raid the same region at the same update as the raiders to keep the raiders from gaining access to the region. Both raiders and defenders employ the same tactics to get their job done. They both "defend" their allies by piling when emergencies arise.
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
(06-12-2014, 03:17 AM)Belschaft Wrote: The objective is to put this issue out to pasture, and make it explicitly clear that this region is neither raider or defender, so we can all move on and deal with more important things. The objective is to ban anybody in this region from holding political views different from yours. This is the most undemocratic bill you've proposed since the Criminal Groups and Organizations law. You don't like that Unibot advocates for TSP being defender, so you want to ban him from holding any government position. You want to drive people like him out of this region.
The text doesnt say you cant have a raider or defender ideology, just that our elected officials cannot use their ideology within their elected rolls. You cannot, as MoFA, deny an embassy on the grounds that said regions ideology is on the opposite side as you.
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
(06-12-2014, 02:00 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: The text doesnt say you cant have a raider or defender ideology, just that our elected officials cannot use their ideology within their elected rolls. You cannot, as MoFA, deny an embassy on the grounds that said regions ideology is on the opposite side as you. The text says that anybody who doesn't identify with this narrow notion of ideological Independence isn't welcome in this region. They are not welcome to run for office. The Assembly does not want them around here advocating for their views. You said earlier that the real issue is that defenders think anything that's not defending is 'evil.' I think the actual issue is that people like Belschaft think anybody who thinks differently from him doesn't have this region's interests in mind. It is impossible to be both pro-defender and pro-TSP, according to the world view of this law. Is that the really what we want this region to become? An intolerant and isolated region? It's hard to believe that this proposal has come from a discussion about making this region more open, welcoming, and functional. What Belschaft proposes -- and what you guys are supporting -- is no different from what he damns Osiris and Lazarus for doing. It is no different than what he falsely accuses Unibot of doing. But this ban on ideologies Belschaft doesn't support is couched at the end of a bunch of good-sounding fluff, so unsuspecting people will end up supporting it. "Independence" looks great, because it's placed on a pedestal where only Independence cares about TSP's interests. It's easy to demonize NS Gameplay by saying, "We just want people to act in TSP's interests!!!" But who here is acting against TSP? Why is it that somebody who thinks TSP should be more defender is acting against TSP's interests? That's all Independence has ever meant in this region. Independent governments, one right after the other, have passed treaty on treaty with raiders and imperialists, while pushing out defenders and crying foul whenever somebody suggests working with defender groups. Everybody here believes that TSP's interests come first. That is not a value held exclusively by people who call themselves Independents. This proposal is not about promoting a TSP First doctrine. It's about Belschaft not liking Unibot and wanting to push him and others like him out of the region. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |