[DEBATE] Vindiciae contra tyrannos

[Kelssek]

I am staggered by the sheer arrogance displayed here, by treating contentious statements of political philosophy as if they were settled fact. I am also rather concerned that the preamble has the potential to undermine the philosophical foundations of other polities, because of the dubious assumption that the conclusions of a certain stripe of political philosophy apply universally, across every culture. Despite the pretentions of most political philosophies and ideologies, this is absolutely not the case. In particular, I would point to the invoking of the existence of "natural law" and "duty" - does the ambassador for Knootoss seriously believe that there is no legitimate counterargument? What about the assertion that "divine right to rule is based on the virtue of the ruler"; might not some polities rather claim that divine right to rule is divine right to rule, end of story? All you really are saying is that you think your values are better, and of course you do!

We could also point to other political philosophers within the same philosophical culture who consider one's "duty" to be complete obedience to the sovereign will - which isn't necessarily manifested in that of an absolute ruler, but could also refer to democratic decisions made by one's fellow citizens. We are extremely hesitant to recognise the right of a group to launch a rebellion because, basically, they didn't like the last election or referendum result - which is entirely plausible given the vagueness of the proposal at hand. I recognise that this is probably the result of an effort to be less ethnocentric in the wording and assumptions, but it seems this just makes things worse. Any bevy of grievances could be fit into the template and lead to basically any rebel group claiming a right to form a parallel power, and while certainly they may consider their grievances very legitimate and their government extremely tyrannical, others may beg to differ.

[Knootoss]

Well... a resolution cannot please everyone. I'm sure there are also political philosophers that support the institution of slavery, but the World Assembly has nevertheless elected to ban slavery. I hope you won't mind that I haven't quoted political philosophies that oppose the purpose of the resolution. Doing so would be charitably inclusive, but also extremely stupid.

As for whether Knootian values are superior to those of its opponents - of course they are. Knootoss is a shining city, a bright light of virtue and civilisation, protected by powerful sea-dikes that keep out an ocean of disease and communism and despair.

Any suggestions for changes that would not needlessly impact upon the legality would be welcomed, though.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Kelssek]

However, banning slavery was not a matter of political philosophy in the same way this proposal of yours is. You'll note, in fact, that beyond making reference to "rights", there's not much abstract fluff at all in the relevant resolution. We could all agree it was immoral without needing to argue over why. This proposal is grasping in the abstract ether and it doesn't have to do so. It would be much less objectionable if the clauses in the preamble were statements such as "BELIEVING" or "CONVINCED" instead of "RECOGNISES". Our objection here is that you are stating what can only be opinion as if it were fact. Not everyone believes in "natural laws" imposing "duties" and this could even be rather paternalistic towards groups who decide it is to their net benefit to put up with a tyrannical government rather than overthrow it, for example. And all this actually weakens your proposal, in our view.

Now I don't see why you deny the comparison with that other proposal on self-determination being discussed, since they both suffer from the same problem of taking assumptions based on abstract philosophy as if they were immutable fact, and declares rebellion to be a right. In fact, the main concern we have is with the practical implications should this pass, as it would seem to privilege those who shout the loudest and have access to weapons, and does not really have any guides as to what sorts of rebellions can be considered legitimate and which not. As written, it even seems that a political minority dissatisfied with an election outcome might be able to legitimately rebel by declaring the democratically elected government "tyrannical" because it's ruining the people (in their opinion), and I'm sure that's not the sort of thing you mean to encourage.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Now I don't see why you deny the comparison with that other proposal on self-determination being discussed, since they both suffer from the same problem of taking assumptions based on abstract philosophy as if they were immutable fact, and declares rebellion to be a right.

What would you expect the ambassador do? If he believes that people have the right to revolution, then why is it wrong that he say so? It sounds as if you want the resolution to say that the right to revolution is controversial and abstract and not really a widely-accepted right that should be considered as a given. Why in the world would the resolution say that?

Either something is a human right or it isn't. Saying that people have a right to not be enslaved is no more abstract than saying people have a right to revolution. The only difference is that most people agree that slavery is wrong. That wasn't the case quite so long ago, not that anybody needs reminding. Interestingly enough, before slavery was universally agreed to be wrong, the right to revolution was universally agreed, among those who believed in democracy, to be a fundamental right of all persons.

Democracy itself is a moral assertion. There is no 'fact' that people have a right to life, liberty and property. The only fact in the world is that you can control people if you can get them to believe your threats of violence and murder. We've evolved as a people to agree that tyranny and despotism are morally wrong. Democracy was offered as an alternative, based entirely on 'assumptions based on abstract philosophy as if they were immutable fact.'

- Dr. B. Castro

[Kelssek]

I didn't say it's wrong to say you believe people have the right to revolution. In fact I just said it would be preferable for the proposal to use the words "believe" or "convinced" rather than "recognises that", which makes them assertions of fact. I said it makes the proposal weaker to base it upon abstract philosophical concepts like "duty" or "natural law", the latter of which suggests to me gravitation or thermodynamics rather than rights and liberties. In fact, it's rather imposing to tell people they have a duty to overthrow their government when they might actually be quite happy with it.

Actually, it might even improve the proposal to chop the first two parts altogether and have as the preamble simply a statement like: "The World Assembly, CONVINCED that it is the right of peoples to replace a government that acts against the interests of citizens with one that serves the interests of citizens". Going into "natural law" and "right" and "sovereign will" etc. just introduces contention where there need be none. But it's not my proposal, of course.

"A government that acts against the interests of citizens" is nonetheless rather vague. Is taxation against the interests of citizens? Some of them might think so. Is permitting same-sex marriage an "action which would ruin or destroy their people"? There actually are people who would say yes. Yet surely you would not think this sufficiently tyrannical to ultimately invoke a right to overthrow a lawful government? Or perhaps you do.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I didn't say it's wrong to say you believe people have the right to revolution. In fact I just said it would be preferable for the proposal to use the words "believe" or "convinced" rather than "recognises that", which makes them assertions of fact.

The point I'm trying to make is even though democracy and democratic principles are only moral statements and not scientific 'fact,' those moral statements are given in absolutist terms. The right of revolution is given in natural law terms because it is a right that exists regardless of any state's acceptance of it. Using terms such as 'recognizing' and 'affirms' make for a much stronger moral stance than saying that you 'believe' something, as if there might be other equally-deserving beliefs. For all intents and purposes, the right to revolution is fact. I think it's preferable to use that kind of language.

Going into "natural law" and "right" and "sovereign will" etc. just introduces contention where there need be none. But it's not my proposal, of course.

The end result is the same, though. And even without using the terms, the proposal's philosophical roots will always be within natural law.

"A government that acts against the interests of citizens" is nonetheless rather vague. Is taxation against the interests of citizens? Some of them might think so. Is permitting same-sex marriage an "action which would ruin or destroy their people"? There actually are people who would say yes. Yet surely you would not think this sufficiently tyrannical to ultimately invoke a right to overthrow a lawful government? Or perhaps you do.

I tend towards an individualist interpretation of self-determination, so I do think, theoretically, taxation of people who don't consent to being taxed is tyranny. More often than not, though, even if people spend all their lives delivering rhetoric, they never exercise their self-determination -- or, rather, by choosing to stay within a territory with taxation, they consent to being taxed. I can go on and on about this theory, but it would probably bore you into sleep.

Although I shouldn't presume to know what the Knootian delegation thinks, I would assume they believe that citizens as a group would determine if their government is acting against their will. If permitting same-sex marriage results in a significant group seeking to overthrow a government, then it is clear that the government no longer has the consent of its people to govern. That's as far as I'll assume for the Knootians. My personal position is already publicly available and apparently is rather radical, even though the founders of democracy believed the same.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Knootoss]

The current wording uses 'recognises' for the very reason that the delegation from Kelssek would have us use 'belief'. The draft resolution mentions the divine mandate, oaths and natural law as justifications which can be used. Using "Believes" means the Assembly must accept them all, which is far more intrusive.

As for the reasons why a people might rise to oppose a government, these are indeed mutable and throughout history peoples have risen for different reasons. The intention here is to rely on values and political philosophy, not to present a restrictive "list" of reasons that result in "permitted" rebellions.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Knootoss]

Submitted for a test run here! Please endorse!

[Kelssek]

The current wording uses 'recognises' for the very reason that the delegation from Kelssek would have us use 'belief'. The draft resolution mentions the divine mandate, oaths and natural law as justifications which can be used. Using "Believes" means the Assembly must accept them all, which is far more intrusive.

Perhaps "CONSIDERING THAT..."? It neutrally accepts the points, while still leaving room for disagreement or alternatives, and does not make the entire proposal dependent on accepting those points. What I'm pointing out here is that people might agree with the conclusion but not how it has been reached. Moreover, there's no need for philosophical jargon which is prone to alienate or at least mystify potential rebels - I mean, freedom fighters - of a different cultural or philosophical tradition.

It's a bit like passing workplace safety standards preambled with "RECOGNISING THAT the amoral and exploitative capitalist system constantly seeks to extract surplus value from the proletariat..."

EDIT:

If permitting same-sex marriage results in a significant group seeking to overthrow a government, then it is clear that the government no longer has the consent of its people to govern.

I'm not imputing this opinion to Knootoss as well, but I note you say "significant". How significant does it or any other grievance have to be, to be legitimate? Surely if a very vocal minority were to be up in arms about a particular issue, it would in fact be undemocratic to be supporting their supposed right to ultimately overthrow the state when they fail to achieve their aims through the political system.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm not imputing this opinion to Knootoss as well, but I note you say "significant". How significant does it or any other grievance have to be, to be legitimate? Surely if a very vocal minority were to be up in arms about a particular issue, it would in fact be undemocratic to be supporting their supposed right to ultimately overthrow the state when they fail to achieve their aims through the political system.

Personally? I would say significant enough that the group could form a viable state if it were to declare independence. A vocal minority could very well qualify. I'm not talking about a minority overthrowing the government of a state, and I don't think this proposal is saying so either. It seems more along the lines of legalizing secession.

[Princess Luna]

To this fine sentiment we give our unequivocal support. Freedom is the right of all sentient beings, and freedom to be governed as one would wish a fundamental component of the broader freedoms we enjoy and wish for all others.

Although we have our differences from and with the people of Knootoss, we are proud to join the nation of Knootoss in sponsoring this fundamental axiom to be adopted by the World Assembly. It therefore meets with our sincere approval and endorsement.

Long Live Liberty!

[The Palentine]

You have my nation's support old bean. even though my nation is a monarchy, the enlightened rulers(especially my Empress) have always felt that the people's personal liberties must be respected.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Knootoss]

I am grateful for the support that has been expressed so far. Unfortunately, a holiday weekend has not been the best of times to submit a proposal. Many delegates are either going on holiday, or sitting on a beach somewhere sipping Pink Bunny Cola. It is highly unlikely that 'Vindiciae contra tyrannos' will make it this run. On the other hand, with only 28 more approvals to go in 22 hours ... including a Monday evening... I'm not quite ruling out that 'Right to Petition' might reach quorum.

'Right to Petition' will therefore either reach vote /or/ be resubmitted to the proposal queue without amendments.

'Vindiciae contra tyrannos' on the other hand will go into a redraft phase, and will probably see much of the political philosophy cut out from it, to be replaced by more appetising 'current events' style justifications.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Linux and the X]

Quite honestly, the only reason we're not approving this is the title. We find it pretentious -- and that probably says something. We have, however, approved of Right to Petition.

[Knootoss]

Quite honestly, the only reason we're not approving this is the title. We find it pretentious -- and that probably says something. We have, however, approved of Right to Petition.

Lamest excuse to vote against something ever.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Astrolinium]

Quite honestly, the only reason we're not approving this is the title. We find it pretentious -- and that probably says something. We have, however, approved of Right to Petition.

Giovanni raised an eyebrow, as Astrolinium's official language just happens to be Latin. "And what, I might ask, is pretentious about Latin? Is Latin, the language I personally speak in my daily life, somehow suddenly more pretentious than English? If the title were in Spanish, or Italian, or French, would you have called it pretentious? Are you somehow unaware just how unpretentious Latin is, being the language not just of Caesar and Cicero but of countless vulgar graffiti? How can you call a title pretentious solely because it has been written in Latin? Well, Cicero may have said suum cuique, but for you, I have this: Tua sententia falsum obiective est, et stultissimus es!" He glared at the ambassador from Linux and the X.

[Flibbleites]

Quite honestly, the only reason we're not approving this is the title. We find it pretentious -- and that probably says something. We have, however, approved of Right to Petition.

Lamest excuse to vote against something ever.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Lamer than the time I voted against a proposal because I couldn't read it without falling asleep part way through?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Mousebumples]

Lamer than the time I voted against a proposal because I couldn't read it without falling asleep part way through?

Ambassador Flibble, your example cites lameness on behalf of the proposing author - not yourself.

Personally, I view your decision to vote against a proposal that you were unable to finish reading a Good Thing. There is no reason why we should have any unread legislation on the WA's books.

[Flibbleites]

Lamer than the time I voted against a proposal because I couldn't read it without falling asleep part way through?

Ambassador Flibble, your example cites lameness on behalf of the proposing author - not yourself.

Personally, I view your decision to vote against a proposal that you were unable to finish reading a Good Thing. There is no reason why we should have any unread legislation on the WA's books.

Actually, the only reason I voted against was because my head hit the "Against" button when I fell asleep. So it wasn't exactly a conscious decision. I still keep a copy of that UN Resolution by my bed, it's the best cure for insomnia I've ever found.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Krioval]

OOC: 8 minutes to go...

Approvals: 50 (Knootoss, Bears Armed Mission, Mousebumples, The State of New York, Charlotte Ryberg, Aldonin, Tacobendria, Seazyr, Freedansia, Three Weasels, Slivary, Krioval, The Imperial Federacy, Bobby Jindal, Umbra Ac Silentium, Nayrbja, Dagnia, Mahaj WA Seat, Capisaria, Brandington, Princess Luna, Hirota, Brodskopolis, Nothim, Junkyland, Aequabila, Doctor Insano, Todd McCloud, Greater Western Europe, IIIIIDaoistsIIIII, Jaxandria, Floreria, Ascendas, RanSackTopia, The LoUnited Nations, Yuktova, Letsch, Armodica, The holy God AHND, Mewsland, Delhanara, Sunny Marionette, Royalsoldiers, Rangel11, General Hammond, Apollans, Nava Siam, Kalimat, The Child of the Jago, Flibbleites)

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why was it deleted?

[Knootoss]

OOC: It wasn't deleted. Just submitted during a weekend without a campaign, and ran out of time.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: It wasn't deleted. Just submitted during a weekend without a campaign, and ran out of time.

Oh, I didn't think you submitted it that long ago! My bad.

[Knootoss]

Having considered a redraft, I feel it would just demean the whole idea behind the proposal to replace philosophical underpinnings with vox pop references to recent events. If anyone has any suggestions for improvement, I'm listening. But if not, I'll likely submit this with a campaign after the weekend.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Casta Nal Expeditionary Forces Command]

I like to the thank the IntFeds for promoting the takeover and the destruction of player nations. Also for promoting political instability, rebellion, and chaos.
AGAINST.