[Draft] Self-Determination Accord

[Tinfect]

[...] Sciongrad IC is very committed to decolonization and likely has no interest in whether or not states it considers conquerors or warmongers are dissolved in the process.

OOC:
Which is part of the problem, you can't really be ideologically uncompromising and stay in-line with GAR #2 on this. And please don't bring up how the Mods said it didn't contradict it, that's not what I'm talking about.

Again, this is probably a result of a very inexact definition. With useful commentary, I'll do my best to refine the definition to include roughly what we understand as colonies.

I don't really like the use of the term 'Colonies' here to begin with. Maybe its just that I run FT, and the term is generally used in the context of National Territories on Worlds beyond their Homeworld, but its usage could cause some serious issues with FT Nations. So, just be careful about it, if you're intent on using it.

This is where we run into what is probably an irreconcilable difference of IC opinion. I roleplay Sciongrad as an ideologically uncompromising pacifist state committed to political freedom and sovereignty. All that hippy RL UN jazz. Obviously I respect you and your IC choices, but Sciongrad the nation does not necessarily, and as I've indicated IC, arguing that the existence of your nation hangs in the balance will not convince ambassador Santos on its own.

Which is where the whole bit about Hypocrisy, and only allowing states that are within x degrees of ideological similarity to Sciongrad came from. The view of the Imperium on the matter, is closer to the idea that being part of the Imperium to begin with is self-determination, and that if a citizen doesn't want to be part of it, they can leave. Both the Imperium, and the World Assembly have enshrined the right of people to leave their countries, and as long as they aren't claiming part of the Imperial Territories, the Imperium can't, and wouldn't really care, to stop them from starting their own.

Again, from an IC perspective, Santos would see that as the natural consequence of self-determination in practice. If a majority of people on Balder support political independence, Sciongrad believes that's their choice.

And that stance is going to cost this thing a lot of support. Rather, it would, if people actually read proposals, but that's neither here nor there, anyway, this is again, another part that brought up Markhov's complaints of Hypocrisy and such. As written, this effectively makes it impossible to run a Unitary State with a strong Central Government, without actually banning such States.

But you've mentioned that you're going to see about changing that, so, I'll refrain from re-treading that point unless its still around in the next draft.

I disagree with this. The title definitely reflects what the proposal does. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that this doesn't deal almost exclusively with self-determination. Furthermore, this proposal, while ideological, doesn't single out one good ideology. Ideally, it would only limit imperialism, which is really not an ideology. If it reads as pro-democracy, it might be because the nature of self-determination bends that way and because the definition is imperfect, but this by no means is meant to endorse liberal democracy. And this proposal does not skirt around either GA#2 or the rules. This proposal is perfectly legal, and not because of any legal contortionism. Anyway, my point here is that this proposal is intended to be straightforward. It is not meant to be deceptive (indeed, I don't think it is), it is not meant to promote a single method of roleplaying (unless you consider anti-imperialism a single type of roleplaying), and it is not against the rules. I will gladly make any IC modifications I can (within reason, considering Sciongrad's objective) to accommodate you and nations with similar political frameworks, but you can't expect me to drop this because it interferes with your roleplay. I'm sure there are many theocracies that were annoyed when Reproductive Freedoms Passed, and many totalitarian states that were annoyed when Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Expression passed. I won't start a precedent where authors are expected to drop proposal ideas simply because they interfere with a certain political framework. So please, work with me and I'll do my best to ensure this proposal satisfies its objectives and allows Tinfect and similar states to continue to exist.

Not really, its called the Self-Determination Accord. That, as most voters just read the titles of proposals, will cause people to assume that this is something that prevents the World Assembly from infringing their National Sovereignty in some way. It's not really about that, but that's not how it will be read by the average lemming, and that's the point of contention.
As for the second point, I still don't buy that Imperialism is not an Ideology, but that's not going to get us anywhere, so lets not dwell on that.
Moving on, yes, it is legal, sure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't take GAR 2 and the GA Rules, bury them under 20 meters of concrete, and dance on the Grave. Again, it doesn't ban any Ideologies, it just makes it impossible to follow the Ideology without throwing any semblance of Realism right out the window.
And, for the love of whatever gods you do or do not believe in, don't compare this to Theocracies and Reproductive Freedoms. A Theocracy can still function without banning Abortion. A Totalitarian State... er, well, okay, as mentioned, it's nearly impossible to be properly totalitarian and still be compliant with WA Legislation. Point is, this makes a certain system of Government effectively impossible, unless it conforms to the Ideology of Sciongrad. I'm not asking you to drop this, I'm asking you to make it not be an existential threat to Unitary States. But, again, as I understand, you're going to make changes to account for that, so it doesn't really do any good to be hammering on about it.

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad intends on reviving this draft. We plan on relying less on the definition and giving the committee broader discretion in determining what constitutes a non-self governing territory. Our hope is that this modification will bypass the difficulty involved in precisely defining a non-self governing territory. Several ambassadors have claimed that the current definition presents an existential crisis to their nations - Sciongrad is sympathetic, but with reservations. We are willing to modify the definition to accommodate particularly unique political systems, but not if that means exempting those nations from fully recognizing the right of national self-determination. In other words: Sciongrad will only make accommodations if they do not undermine the stated goals of this resolution. If a state truly is comprised entirely of non-self governing territories and if these non-self governing territories are being denied either autonomy or self-determination, this resolution will absolutely not accommodate it.

As always, all criticism and suggestions are welcome."

OOC: Haven't taken care of Sierra Lyricalia or CD's comments, but I'm on that too!

[Tinfect]

"Sciongrad intends on reviving this draft. We plan on relying less on the definition and giving the committee broader discretion in determining what constitutes a non-self governing territory. Our hope is that this modification will bypass the difficulty involved in precisely defining a non-self governing territory. Several ambassadors have claimed that the current definition presents an existential crisis to their nations - Sciongrad is sympathetic, but with reservations. We are willing to modify the definition to accommodate particularly unique political systems, but not if that means exempting those nations from fully recognizing the right of national self-determination. In other words: Sciongrad will only make accommodations if they do not undermine the stated goals of this resolution. If a state truly is comprised entirely of non-self governing territories and if these non-self governing territories are being denied either autonomy or self-determination, this resolution will absolutely not accommodate it.

As always, all criticism and suggestions are welcome."

OOC: Haven't taken care of Sierra Lyricalia or CD's comments, but I'm on that too!

OOC:
I'm not quite sure how to interpret that IC up there, do you mean that you will be working to ensure that Unitary States don't explode spectacularly under this legislation, but not giving up any ground on Imperialism? Or that this draft will continue to legalize Rebellion and Secession if a particular group isn't quite happy with their system of government?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC:
I'm not quite sure how to interpret that IC up there, do you mean that you will be working to ensure that Unitary States don't explode spectacularly under this legislation, but not giving up any ground on Imperialism? Or that this draft will continue to legalize Rebellion and Secession if a particular group isn't quite happy with their system of government?

Yea, I've got similar concerns about this too. On this topic (well, it ain't Econ), I am going to take Tinfect's position under very strong advisement.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:
I'm not quite sure how to interpret that IC up there, do you mean that you will be working to ensure that Unitary States don't explode spectacularly under this legislation, but not giving up any ground on Imperialism? Or that this draft will continue to legalize Rebellion and Secession if a particular group isn't quite happy with their system of government?

And then those rebel groups can apply for WA membership and according to GA#2, you can't interfere with their new government! YAY!

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:
I'm not quite sure how to interpret that IC up there, do you mean that you will be working to ensure that Unitary States don't explode spectacularly under this legislation, but not giving up any ground on Imperialism? Or that this draft will continue to legalize Rebellion and Secession if a particular group isn't quite happy with their system of government?

And then those rebel groups can apply for WA membership and according to GA#2, you can't interfere with their new government! YAY!

OOC: I would think that a rebel group, by virtue of it's struggle to separate from the mother nation, is not bound by WA law, so one of the strongest IC tools rebellious provinces likely have at their disposal is WA membership for recognition.

[Alotopia]

Lord Avos Jarquen, brother to Lord Paramount Davos jarquen, quickly rose to his feet and was recognized by the chair to speak, "Once again, Sciongrad is trampling on many forms of governance! I have several questions that I think would help those in the WA better understand this proposal:

What kind of "self-governance" are you looking for here, Ambassador? Is governing from the planet, as a planetary or regional Lord would, classified as self-governance or are you insinuating that in order to be "self-governing", nations must prescribe to your form of governance?

How would federal districts be classified under this? Most are directly under state control, so would they be self-governing or what?"

Lord Jarquen quietly sits down for the Sciongrad Ambassador to respond...

OOC: I have read the definition of "self-governance" as outlined in the actual proposal, however, as stated in the IC post, I need clarification on how this would apply to governors who are under a larger political body. I feel like this is a kind of large loophole that could say that the planet has self-governance because they have a planetary governor.

[Normlpeople]

"This will literally destroy some nations down to their core. I fail to see how this is beneficial to the WA since it would seem to chase such nations away. Ours is not one of them, as far as I know." Clover said "My concern here is how such determination takes place. The committee decides if a partially self-governing or autonomous territory is 'qualified' under this act, and if so, there is a referendum held, correct? Who requests such a referendum exactly?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

"This will literally destroy some nations down to their core.

Some people just want to watch the world have Exit referendums.

[Excidium Planetis]

"This will literally destroy some nations down to their core.

Some people just want to watch the world have Exit referendums.

Cornelia Schultz' latest social media post:

If Self-Determination accord passes, I will recommend resignation.
#WAExcit

[Sciongrad]

"This will literally destroy some nations down to their core. I fail to see how this is beneficial to the WA since it would seem to chase such nations away. Ours is not one of them, as far as I know." Clover said "My concern here is how such determination takes place. The committee decides if a partially self-governing or autonomous territory is 'qualified' under this act, and if so, there is a referendum held, correct? Who requests such a referendum exactly?"

"I'm not sympathetic to nations whose very existence depends on depriving other people of self determination. Your argument is just as persuasive as complaining that a resolution against slavery might destroy the economies of certain member nations.

Regarding your second point. Clause 3 is poorly worded. Member nations are required to provide their non-self governing territories with referenda - the non-self governing territory then chooses between statehood or continued political subordination, or even some in between option. The proposal, however, doesn't place the responsibility for requesting a referendum on the non-self governing territory, however, because it is possible that they lack any recognized authority. The member nation is responsible for administering the referendum. There are other obvious details that will be unique to each situation that cannot be outlined in this proposal but will also be acknowledged by any reasonable nation.

Finally, if the territory is non-self governing as determined by the WADB, there must be a referendum."

"Once again, Sciongrad is trampling on many forms of governance!"

"Oooh, we're getting a reputation, Ricardo. Did you hear that?"

What kind of "self-governance" are you looking for here, Ambassador? Is governing from the planet, as a planetary or regional Lord would, classified as self-governance or are you insinuating that in order to be "self-governing", nations must prescribe to your form of governance?

"Does what would otherwise be a distinct cultural or political unit in a given piece of territory have autonomy? Does a certain geographic region have unique interests? These are all considerations the WADB must make before adding a territory to its list of non-self governing territories. In some cases, planetary or regional government may be sufficient. In some cases, it may not. This issue is not as clear cut as many of us would like. However, for a nation to qualify as self-governing, it does not need to be a liberal democracy, like you seemed to suggest with your last comment."

"How would federal districts be classified under this? Most are directly under state control, so would they be self-governing or what?"

"Again, this would depend on the context. Do they have some type of representation at the federal level that acts in their best interest? Do the inhabitants of the federal district have a distinct cultural or linguistic tradition that separates them from the rest of the nation? You can't simply ask 'does x count' because there are many considerations that need to be assessed first."

OOC: I have read the definition of "self-governance" as outlined in the actual proposal, however, as stated in the IC post, I need clarification on how this would apply to governors who are under a larger political body. I feel like this is a kind of large loophole that could say that the planet has self-governance because they have a planetary governor.

OOC: I agree that the definition is sort of unclear. My plan is to grant the WADB more discretion (it will be explicitly outlined, of course) in determining what constitutes a non-self governing territory. The current definition includes many things that probably shouldn't be considered non-self governing territories and excludes many things that would be.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'm not sympathetic to nations whose very existence depends on depriving other people of self determination. Your argument is just as persuasive as complaining that a resolution against slavery might destroy the economies of certain member nations.

"Once again, Sciongrad is trampling on many forms of governance!"

"Oooh, we're getting a reputation, Ricardo. Did you hear that?"

Bell claps enthusiastically from his desk near the front of the debate hall.

[Excidium Planetis]

"I'm not sympathetic to nations whose very existence depends on depriving other people of self determination. Your argument is just as persuasive as complaining that a resolution against slavery might destroy the economies of certain member nations.

"A false analogy." Schultz declares. "Slavery is not beneficial for the economy, so its removal cannot result in a long term economic collapse. But creating civil strife in nations will result in long term problems."

[Sciongrad]

"I'm not sympathetic to nations whose very existence depends on depriving other people of self determination. Your argument is just as persuasive as complaining that a resolution against slavery might destroy the economies of certain member nations.

"A false analogy." Schultz declares. "Slavery is not beneficial for the economy, so its removal cannot result in a long term economic collapse. But creating civil strife in nations will result in long term problems."

"Arguing that some nations cannot build their entire economies on slavery demonstrates an astounding misunderstanding of history. Whether or not slavery is efficient or beneficial is a totally different argument than whether or not an economy can be built on it. History says it can."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'm not sympathetic to nations whose very existence depends on depriving other people of self determination. Your argument is just as persuasive as complaining that a resolution against slavery might destroy the economies of certain member nations.

"A false analogy." Schultz declares. "Slavery is not beneficial for the economy, so its removal cannot result in a long term economic collapse. But creating civil strife in nations will result in long term problems."

OOC: I can't do this ICly, so feel free to respond IC to this, but that isn't true. Confederate States of America. Almost everything was based on exports of cotton, tobacco, and later, sugar, and run on slave labor. Haiti and the Caribbean islands. Exports of sugar and rum were based almost entirely on the plantations manned by native and imported slaves. Arabic coffee in the early Ottoman Empire was run almost exclusively on slave labor in Western Africa, and the coffee trade vastly outstripped the silk and spice trade during the 1600's, especially with the inability of the Dutch East Indies to produce coffee for quite some time. Economies, in part or even all but in entirety, could be based on the institution of slavery. Despite that, we banned it, in the game and outside of it.

The civil instability of the destruction of slavery as an institution is also a present issue. The South's issues regarding emancipation and forced industrialization by the occupying Yankees, in addition to the assertion of violence and domination by Southern Democrats against the newly freed workforce, is a great example. The American South still hasn't recovered from the economic devastation of Reconstruction in some places. That wasn't sufficient reason to allow slavery.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Economies, in part or even all but in entirety, could be based on the institution of slavery.

None of these historical examples beat the argument that the average product of slave workers is lower than the average product of paid workers. Slave and serf-based societies are also resistant to changes that would increase capital share in national production expenditures. Economically, slavery doesn't work. The only benefit is that you would not have to pay slaves — something which is mostly irrelevant because you still have to house, clothe, and feed them. Wages in a pre-industrial economy are almost entirely expended on housing, clothing, and feeding, so there isn't greater efficiency from that perspective either.

[Sciongrad]

Economies, in part or even all but in entirety, could be based on the institution of slavery.

None of these historical examples beat the argument that the average product of slave workers is lower than the average product of paid workers. Slave and serf-based societies are also resistant to changes that would increase capital share in national production expenditures. Economically, slavery doesn't work. The only benefit is that you would not have to pay slaves — something which is mostly irrelevant because you still have to house, clothe, and feed them. Wages in a pre-industrial economy are almost entirely expended on housing, clothing, and feeding, so there isn't greater efficiency from that perspective either.

OOC: Again, whether or not slavery is economically efficient is unimportant. My point revolved around the claim that a nation's economy can be built on slavery and that abolishing slavery overnight would be devastating. I, of course, agree wth you that slavery is an inefficient economic system, but that doesn't mean it can't form the economic foundation of a society.

[Excidium Planetis]

"A false analogy." Schultz declares. "Slavery is not beneficial for the economy, so its removal cannot result in a long term economic collapse. But creating civil strife in nations will result in long term problems."

"Arguing that some nations cannot build their entire economies on slavery demonstrates an astounding misunderstanding of history. Whether or not slavery is efficient or beneficial is a totally different argument than whether or not an economy can be built on it. History says it can."

"I never argued that. I merely argued that the elimination of slavery has long term economic benefits. The elimination of non-self-governing territories does not have long term political benefits."

snip

The American South still hasn't recovered from the economic devastation of Reconstruction in some places. That wasn't sufficient reason to allow slavery.

OOC:
Do you believe the South's economy would be better off now than it currently is if they had maintained slavery as the basis of their economy? I don't believe so. As IA argued, slavery doesn't work economically. If that is the case, as you agree, then even with the devastation of Reconstruction, the elimination of slavery had long term benefits for the South's economy. I argue that the South is better off economically because of the Reconstruction.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Since this query seems to be getting buried, I'll just drop a link to it here...

[Separatist Peoples]

"Arguing that some nations cannot build their entire economies on slavery demonstrates an astounding misunderstanding of history. Whether or not slavery is efficient or beneficial is a totally different argument than whether or not an economy can be built on it. History says it can."

"I never argued that. I merely argued that the elimination of slavery has long term economic benefits. The elimination of non-self-governing territories does not have long term political benefits."

snip

The American South still hasn't recovered from the economic devastation of Reconstruction in some places. That wasn't sufficient reason to allow slavery.

OOC:
Do you believe the South's economy would be better off now than it currently is if they had maintained slavery as the basis of their economy? I don't believe so. As IA argued, slavery doesn't work economically. If that is the case, as you agree, then even with the devastation of Reconstruction, the elimination of slavery had long term benefits for the South's economy. I argue that the South is better off economically because of the Reconstruction.

OOC: that isn't what I was arguing. You claimed a state couldn't have a long term economic collapse as a result of the loss of slavery. I demonstrated one. Long term isn't forever, and the decades long economic depression absolutely counts. You also seemed to argue that states cannot base their economies of slave labor. This is patently false. History proves this to be the case. The analogy Sciongrad made stands.

[Excidium Planetis]

"I never argued that. I merely argued that the elimination of slavery has long term economic benefits. The elimination of non-self-governing territories does not have long term political benefits."


OOC:
Do you believe the South's economy would be better off now than it currently is if they had maintained slavery as the basis of their economy? I don't believe so. As IA argued, slavery doesn't work economically. If that is the case, as you agree, then even with the devastation of Reconstruction, the elimination of slavery had long term benefits for the South's economy. I argue that the South is better off economically because of the Reconstruction.

OOC: that isn't what I was arguing. You claimed a state couldn't have a long term economic collapse as a result of the loss of slavery. I demonstrated one.

If an economy is better off than it would have been otherwise, how is that a long term economic collapse? Are you arguing that the South would have had a greater economy if they had kept slavery?

In the reverse: Does removing slavery grant long term economic benefits? Yes, it does. My argument is that granting autonomy to non-self-governing territories does not grant long term benefits, unlike removing slavery.

You also seemed to argue that states cannot base their economies of slave labor. This is patently false. History proves this to be the case. The analogy Sciongrad made stands.

I never implied that at all. Sciongrad said:

Your argument is just as persuasive as complaining that a resolution against slavery might destroy the economies of certain member nations.

To which I replied that slavery was not beneficial to the economy, so removing it could not destroy the economy... it actually benefits the economy to remove slavery.

[Separatist Peoples]

If an economy is better off than it would have been otherwise, how is that a long term economic collapse?

OOC: Because a collapse isn't permanent. The devastation of china by imperialist policies was absolutely long term; the damages spread across entire centuries. That doesn't mean it was permanent. Long term isn't an infinite amount of time.

Are you arguing that the South would have had a greater economy if they had kept slavery?

OOC: That isn't what I am arguing at all. I am arguing that the policies intended to remove slavery from the former Confederate States directly resulted in long term economic depression and struggle. The Panic of 1873, known at the time as the Great Depression (until a worse one rolled around), and the degradation that lasted thirty-odd years is absolutely a long term depression. I'm arguing that this was a weaker economy compared to the antebellum economy, which was thriving and based on slavery. In this case, there was a clear downturn as a result. Despite that downturn, slavery's reintroduction was never a realistic option outside of the deluded minds of a few old guard Democrats in reintegrated states, because it was, on principal, too awful an institution to allow.

In the reverse: Does removing slavery grant long term economic benefits? Yes, it does. My argument is that granting autonomy to non-self-governing territories does not grant long term benefits, unlike removing slavery.

OOC: None of the eventual economic gains of the American South was a direct result of removing slavery, but of improving industrialization and strengthening of the national economy. Granting autonomy to non-self governing territories had a salutary effect on the US, Canada, India, China, Vietnam, Worst South Korea...the list goes on and on. Not only was the analogy to slavery accurate, but your claim has some notable examples that are run counter to your claim.

To which I replied that slavery was not beneficial to the economy, so removing it could not destroy the economy... it actually benefits the economy to remove slavery.

OOC: All of the Reconstruction Era is evidence that this claim is untrue. Just because slavery is not beneficial to an economy doesn't mean removing it cannot be harmful. It was, and it was done anyway, because it was the right thing to do.

[Bears Armed]

Economies, in part or even all but in entirety, could be based on the institution of slavery.

None of these historical examples beat the argument that the average product of slave workers is lower than the average product of paid workers. Slave and serf-based societies are also resistant to changes that would increase capital share in national production expenditures. Economically, slavery doesn't work. The only benefit is that you would not have to pay slaves — something which is mostly irrelevant because you still have to house, clothe, and feed them. Wages in a pre-industrial economy are almost entirely expended on housing, clothing, and feeding, so there isn't greater efficiency from that perspective either.

OOC: You're only thinking in terms of the 'imported slaves' model exemplified by-- for example -- the pre-ACW southern USA. Enslavement can also be used to keep down a conquered people and use them to provide resources that otherwise wouldn't be made available to the enslavers, e.g. ['Classical'] Sparta's conversion of the Messenian population into own its 'helot' class which then allowed the Spartiates themselves to concentrate their own activities on military training without needing to participate in agriculture as well.

[Separatist Peoples]

None of these historical examples beat the argument that the average product of slave workers is lower than the average product of paid workers. Slave and serf-based societies are also resistant to changes that would increase capital share in national production expenditures. Economically, slavery doesn't work. The only benefit is that you would not have to pay slaves — something which is mostly irrelevant because you still have to house, clothe, and feed them. Wages in a pre-industrial economy are almost entirely expended on housing, clothing, and feeding, so there isn't greater efficiency from that perspective either.

OOC: You're only thinking in terms of the 'imported slaves' model exemplified by-- for example -- the pre-ACW southern USA. Enslavement can also be used to keep down a conquered people and use them to provide resources that otherwise wouldn't be made available to the enslavers, e.g. ['Classical'] Sparta's conversion of the Messenian population into own its 'helot' class which then allowed the Spartiates themselves to concentrate their own activities on military training without needing to participate in agriculture as well.

OOC: A very economically strengthening endeavor, I imagine.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: You're only thinking in terms of the 'imported slaves' model exemplified by-- for example -- the pre-ACW southern USA. Enslavement can also be used to keep down a conquered people and use them to provide resources that otherwise wouldn't be made available to the enslavers, e.g. ['Classical'] Sparta's conversion of the Messenian population into own its 'helot' class which then allowed the Spartiates themselves to concentrate their own activities on military training without needing to participate in agriculture as well.

OOC: A very economically strengthening endeavor, I imagine.

OOC: As subjugating the Messenians also placed all of Messenia's farmland under Spartan control, meaning that the food produced there now became Spartan property without needing to be paid for, arguably yes...