| [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act |
|
Alignment Act
An Act Laying out the Alignment and Reasoning for the Alignment of TSP 1. Reasoning for Alignment
(1) WHEREAS the South Pacific has for years held an ideology best described as "leans defender"; and (2) WHEREAS the South Pacific has a long-held democratic tradition, one that only a Defender ideology truly upholds; and (3) WHEREAS an Independent of Raider ideology runs directly counter to the idea of promoting a peaceful, native driven transition to democracy for the whole of Nation States, an idea the South Pacific has long believed in; and (4) WHEREAS we maintain a strong commitment to our allies in times of crisis, one morally enshrined in the principles of Defenderism; and (5) WHEREAS the SPSF has operated in a way that promotes the rights of natives, specifically that of self-determination and the leadership has shown no sign or desire to change this method of operation; and (6) WHEREAS a shared principle of Defenderism will allow us to become closer with those regions we are already aligned with culturally; and (7) WHEREAS our culture is defined by acceptance and welcome for all who pledge to uphold our democratic traditions, as opposed to a pledge to a monarch or leader, demonstrating a uniquely Defender cultural attitude; and (8) WHEREAS the South Pacific is in a unique position, as a feeder, to usher in a uniquely Defender and democratic revolution into Nation States at large; be it now therefore 2. Alignment (1) RESOLVED that the South Pacific shall now officially align as a Defender region for all military, diplomatic, political, and cultural purposes; and be it further (2) RESOLVED that the SPSF shall only operate in a manner consistent with a Defender ideology, especially as enshrined in this act; and be it further (3) RESOLVED that the "Defender" tag be added to the gameside region. 3. Constitutional Law (1) The Alignment Act is a constitutional law, and further amendments to it must meet constitutional amendment requirements. Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
I think this would work best as an Amendment to the Charter, specifically in Article X, and even more so in Section 3:
The Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific Wrote:X. THE MILITARY The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe. Complete Conflict of Interest (06-05-2019, 10:44 PM)The United Chinese Republic Wrote: I think this would work best as an Amendment to the Charter, specifically in Article X, and even more so in Section 3: My issue with that is that this alignment change is bigger than just a militaristic one. As a Constitutional Law, it holds equal weight to the Charter while still allowing us to fully divulge the reasonings we are doing this so we will never forget the cultural, political, diplomatic, and yes, militaristic, reasons for this change, Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
I agree that this belongs in the Military section of the Charter. The active part of the text isn’t long enough to merit its own act, and it fits perfectly into the Charter there. I don’t believe it’s the responsibility of our laws to detail why they exist— and indeed, no other act does that (e.g. the Elections Act doesn’t have a paragraph explaining why IRV is a good voting system).
![[Image: AfI6yZX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/AfI6yZX.png){kind=small} ~ Aumeltopia ~
Political ideologies should not be hard-coded into our laws. If the next government happens to want a raider-leaning approach this will restrict them. This defines our region as a defender region and many of our major allies (especially TNP which refuses to work with defenders in any capacity) will have problems regarding that. It is even debatable whether our region is even a de facto defender region considering we occasionally do tag raiding and destructive raiding on unpleasant regions and there are months where 50% of our operations are raiding.
Chief Supervising Armchair
If we officially declare defender, then yes, it should be hard for a raider to come along and reverse that. That’s the entire point of declaring. Otherwise, Viet, you’re just saying we should stick with the wishy washy paradigm we’ve been in, where our alignment changes on a dime.
Also, we have not done a raid in a very long time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm with Glen on this one. As weird as it sounds, it's probably in our best interests to alienate some people so that we can make better and more lasting friendships with people we know will come to our aid should we need it. TSP needs to stand for something if we're going to continue to be a leader in gameplay. Faffing about and deciding to actively do nothing and stand for nothing doesn't help us to achieve our goals or provide any real security.
So it's time that we figured out who our friends are. And given that raiding is kind of antithetical to democracy and individual freedoms, which are kind of the pillars on which the Coalition is based, it just makes sense for us to make official what we've long danced around. The SPSF is already seen as basically a defender organization in all but name. I think it's high time we embraced it. Witchcraft and Sorcery Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.
I don't mind the content as much as the style of this bill. It is a very stark departure from the language found in all our other laws.
Draft proposal, as an Amendment to the Charter:
Charter Wrote:X. THE MILITARY The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe. Complete Conflict of Interest
I'd keep in the loophole for "espousing hateful ideologies", for the charter amendment.
Regarding OP, I think that's better served as a Resolution rather than an Act. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
|
![[Image: fKnK6O4.png]](https://i.imgur.com/fKnK6O4.png){kind=small}
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |