[Essay] The Modern NatSov? Life After National Sovereignty

[Imperium Anglorum]

This realigned the WA's debate from being a question of national sovereignty versus international federalism to a debate over neoliberalism versus liberalism - on one hand, we have those who see states as agents of social change and good, and on the other hand, we have those who see states as ideally little more than night-watchmen, privy to a personal and corporate anarchy.

And I honestly don't see a problem with a neo-liberal conception of the state in the World Assembly. The principle of subsidiarity which Tzorland (?, in any case, Frustrated Franciscans) brought up, I feel, would almost guarantee that outcome. As John Stuart Mill said,

...the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.

Each state is quite able to be an autonomous decision-maker which is able to take its own actions. The real question for the World Assembly then, is how far that autonomy goes. A supra-national state which maintains autonomy and prevents harms to other states, is one which certainly fits within the role of the World Assembly.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Sierra Lyricalia: Actually, I wrote a piece that said just that. The WA is supreme due to game mechanics. IC, states give up real sovereignty when they sign on, which is outlined in Rights and Duties. It's an inherent federal relationship: any power not claimed by the WA is a power for the states; but the WA can claim pretty much any power it wants.

International Federalism, however, isn't a unitary world government. The 'federalism' aspect must still be respected, and so the WA should generally devolve power and decision-making to the states. Many resolutions are neither NatSov nor IntFed. Not every resolution that has some WA agency regulating things is a proper manifestation of IntFed ideology.

Although Knootoss has proclaimed NatSov runs by the subsidiary principle, it's actually IntFed that does. The nature of what the WA usually does, though, means the smallest, most local competent authority may very well be an international body.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Imperium Anglorum]

Sierra Lyricalia: Actually, I wrote a piece that said just that. The WA is supreme due to game mechanics. IC, states give up real sovereignty when they sign on, which is outlined in Rights and Duties. It's an inherent federal relationship: any power not claimed by the WA is a power for the states; but the WA can claim pretty much any power it wants.

Not on economic matters, per NEF... Similarly, under that interpretation, once R&D is repealed someone can pass a new foundational document which restricts elements to international issues...

International Federalism, however, isn't a unitary world government. The 'federalism' aspect must still be respected, and so the WA should generally devolve power and decision-making to the states. Many resolutions are neither NatSov nor IntFed. Not every resolution that has some WA agency regulating things is a proper manifestation of IntFed ideology.

Yes, however, the devolution of that power is something which I would say is paramount above any conception of WA super-authority.

Although Knootoss has proclaimed NatSov runs by the subsidiary principle, it's actually IntFed that does. The nature of what the WA usually does, though, means the smallest, most local competent authority may very well be an international body.

These are just opposite sides of the coin. The NatSov perspective is 'only do it if it is necessary supra-nationally'. The IntFed one is 'only allow states to do it if they do it better'.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I've actually been keeping up with things in the WA in a somewhat limited way since my departure from this august assembly. Those who decry the National Sovereigntist argument and believe or hope that NatSov is dead and/or intellectually bankrupt have pushed that narrative somewhat strongly over time. This essay strikes me as something of a logical continuation of that narrative.

Yet I disagree strongly with the premise that's been put forth here. National Sovereignty as a position is still kicking, and its adherants still exist. We are not intellectually compromised. In my own essay, I pushed for great care to be taken when passing international legislation. I pushed to examine closely if an issue would be better handled on a international scale or at the national level. I explained that the power to pass international law does not necessitate a duty to use that power.

What you've done here is attempt to define NatSov by your own standards and then claim that it doesn't exist anymore since it doesn't meet those standards. For some pretty obvious reasons, I object to that argument. If you'd like to focus in on how the NatSov player doesn't really exist anymore, I'd point you my way, Mousebumple's way, Kenny's way, or any number of other delegates to this assembly who hold either strongly or moderately to the National Sovereigntist movement.

It is not the absolutist philosophy you seem to think it is. And for that reason alone it cannot possibly die as long as one resolution writer steps back and says "Now wait a minute, is the international community really the best arbiter of this issue?".

[Sciongrad]

I've actually been keeping up with things in the WA in a somewhat limited way since my departure from this august assembly. Those who decry the National Sovereigntist argument and believe or hope that NatSov is dead and/or intellectually bankrupt have pushed that narrative somewhat strongly over time. This essay strikes me as something of a logical continuation of that narrative.

This essay does not decry national sovereignty and I do not hope that it is dead. I even explicitly state that this is not a condemnation of National Sovereignty and that I believe modern players who claim to support National Sovereignty should revive its ideological foundations.

Yet I disagree strongly with the premise that's been put forth here. National Sovereignty as a position is still kicking, and its adherants still exist. We are not intellectually compromised. In my own essay, I pushed for great care to be taken when passing international legislation. I pushed to examine closely if an issue would be better handled on a international scale or at the national level. I explained that the power to pass international law does not necessitate a duty to use that power.

In what way is it still kicking? When's the last time someone made a NatSov argument in a repeal? When the movement's most visible exponents claim to be IntFed sometimes and NatSov other times or dissemble rather than treat National Sovereignty like an argument in its own right, it's dead. It doesn't matter if modern NatSovs actually believe in NatSov principles because they have, essentially, been left in the cold by its supporters. You treat it as an end to be achieved, not as an actual argument. As a result, reasoned arguments grounded in NatSov principles have been almost completely absent in the GA discourse for years. I recall you making the argument some time ago that repeals are, ipso facto, NatSov and therefore the fact that so many authors repeal legislation is evidence of the continuity of a NatSov tradition. I am not convinced that is true, especially if these new NatSovs aren't willing to make NatSov arguments ever.

What you've done here is attempt to define NatSov by your own standards and then claim that it doesn't exist anymore since it doesn't meet those standards. For some pretty obvious reasons, I object to that argument. If you'd like to focus in on how the NatSov player doesn't really exist anymore, I'd point you my way, Mousebumple's way, Kenny's way, or any number of other delegates to this assembly who hold either strongly or moderately to the National Sovereigntist movement.

I disagree with this assessment for several reasons. Firstly, I do not believe I have set up some arbitrary standards for National Sovereignty. In the past, it was treated as a cohesive argument and players applied it consistently. That is not the case today. I also object to your list of examples. I recognize Kenny is a NatSov - in my essay, I acknowledge the existence of such players. Kenny, Bears, and a couple others have hung around. However, Mouse is not a NatSov in the traditional sense. GAR#286 is one of the most interventionist resolutions ever, and that is coming from a pro-choice IntFed. She has also fallen into the trap of totally ignoring National Sovereignty as an argument in its own right. While defending her repeal of GAR#99, she actually argued that because no resolution created a concept of jurisdiction, it doesn't exist in the NS world. Why did she make that argument? Why didn't she just argue that multilateral prosecution was an inappropriate exercise of WA power and cite a couple of fundamental flaws with the idea? You cannot claim to be a NatSov if you're not even willing to embrace its principles at the most fundamental level. And Mousebumples is by no means the only player to do this, she is simply the most obvious example.

If "true" National Sovereigntism has lost an intellectual basis, that's at least partly because its opponents, if they ever really existed, stopped articulating theirs.

International Fedralism was never really articulated very well in the first place. The NatSovs had an organized, ideological movement for many years. The IntFeds did not have that. Sionis Prioratus, Glen-Rhodes, Unibot, Hirota, and a couple of others sort of did their own thing - some articulated their brand of international federalism better than others - but there was never a real attempt at organization or a unified concept of international federalism.

[Glen-Rhodes]

IA: Yes! They can do that, definitely. But that wouldn't change the default state of WA supremacy. The only reason anything is off limits to the WA is because the WA makes it so. NEF is a WA resolution, after all, and we can repeal it at any moment and take economic sovereignty away. The relationship between the WA and its member states is philosophically one of devolution.

IntFed and NatSov are supposed to be ways to determine when it's proper for the WA to act and when it's proper for the states to reserve the right to do so (or to not do so).

Also, I disagree what your characterization of IntFed. The default assumption is that policy starts with states. There has to be a compelling reason for the WA to take over. That sounds like NatSov, but in reality the practical NatSov position has been that states can always do it better, and that anything that's not commonly considered an 'international issue' isn't one. In other words, NatSovs try to mimic real-world international cooperation under the UN. IntFeds are far more like the EU, despite how much Knootoss would disagree with me on that. There's an assumption that global governance is desirable and possible. While NatSovs believe that global governance is generally a bad idea. (Except when it comes to their pet projects, like the OP pointed out.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Dourian Embassy]

This essay does not decry national sovereignty and I do not hope that it is dead. I even explicitly state that this is not a condemnation of National Sovereignty and that I believe modern players who claim to support National Sovereignty should revive its ideological foundations.

I don't necessarily think you personally decry the movement or hope that it is dead. I do think that you've assumed the arguments of those that do in your essay. That's understandable, as those that hold those opinions have treated that position as fact for a quite some time.

You cannot claim to be a NatSov if you're not even willing to embrace its principles at the most fundamental level.

I think what you seek from NatSovs as proof of their ongoing existence or adherence is ideological purity. That's unacceptable from a Natsov standpoint. We're not all going to agree on what is and isn't an international issue or even how to go about addressing them. That's part of the charm of the position. Natsov's are not completely unified or ideologically pure. We disagree on the basics sometimes.

But ultimately, rather than pointing to NatSov and saying it's broken because X, I'd ask: By what standard, if attained, would you hold NatSov to not be broken or defunct? If the standard requires some sort of ideological purity or anything beyond a set of guiding principles in the pursuit of individual national goals then I don't believe you understand NatSov as well as you think you do.

[Glen-Rhodes]

There's also the missing point that NatSov vs IntFed has had a serious interpersonal feud element at the height of the ideology wars. Many players wouldn't switch sides, even if they completely switched their views, because a lot of it at one point was about not liking other players and wanting their proposals to fail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Araraukar]

When's the last time someone made a NatSov argument in a repeal?

Why are you so hung up on repeals? Do you actually read the drafting debates? Variations of "why do you think this is an international issue?" are brought up practically in every single debate.

[Bears Armed]

The only reason anything is off limits to the WA is because the WA makes it so.

Really? So try creating a resolution that bars nations from resigning WA membership and see how far you get...

[Sandaoguo]

The only reason anything is off limits to the WA is because the WA makes it so.

Really? So try creating a resolution that bars nations from resigning WA membership and see how far you get...

You will assimilate or be DEATed.