Will the real International Federalist please stand up?

[Glen-Rhodes]

And according to many definitions of Federalism, constitutionally delimited responsibilities are an inherent part of Federalism.

For what it's worth, federalism in the context of the European Union is usually depicted as far more centralized than in the United States.

I agree. But Unibot et. al. are still crusading to have the "no army" rule removed. For a reason!

So that the World Assembly can address human rights violations, yes, either through its own means or through coordinating member states.

These documents provide arguments for saying that the "WA should address issues of true international importance through practical and effective legislation that shows at least a modicum of respect for the valid cultural, technological, and biological differences of the membership." That is a positive statement, a mission, which is being carried out by NatSov participants in the World Assembly.

Yeah. That isn't actually any more specific than what I've been saying IntFeds believe.

If it was a mere ontological difference, we wouldn't actually be having principled disagreements about resolutions. So I am disinclined to believe that it is merely a question of having a disagreement about dictionary definitions.

It's not a disagreement about dictionary definitions. It's a disagreement about how the World Assembly exists. The ontological views of the two groups lead to two different agendas, even though both groups have a belief that there are things that should be left solely to the individual member states.

What I'd like for you to do is to descend from the gloried realm of NationStates Metaphysics and into the bloody arena of practical political science.

Not that political science is usually 'practical,' but I do think it's a pretty useless effort on my behalf to try to explain the 'metaphysics' of the World Assembly. But it's the best way to explain the differences between the two groups.

What rights do states have? What should the WA keep out of? And if self-described IntFeds cannot agree on any single right that states are entitled to, do states really have any rights at all?

There is no single answer, just as NatSov has no single answer for what constitutes an important international issue. But, first, I want to correct your question. IntFed does not approach states' rights as, "What rights do states have?" The issue is approached as, "What rights do states not have?" Not only does this conform with the IntFed ontology, but it's also a far more practical question to answer. And as I said, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that states do not have the right to determine how they treat their people, in terms of human rights. Where you go from there largely depends on whether you're progressive, neoliberal, conservative, Marxist, etc.

This implies that states can do whatever the World Assembly says they cannot do. Since the World Assembly has default plenary authority, however, that does not imply that states have the right to do things that aren't restricted by the World Assembly. They are neither restricted or protected in actions that the World Assembly has not addressed.

Hang on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you one of the people who claims game mechanics don't matter to compliance?

I am neither talking about compliance nor saying that IntFed is rooted in game mechanics. The earlier justifications for plenary World Assembly authority were, however, like almost all theories on WA power, rooted in game mechanics.

[Quelesh]

I'd say about half of all NatSovers are liberal, in fact. Libertarianism and thoughtful conservatism are also popular.

I cannot understand why any libertarian would be a National Sovereigntist. A libertarian is someone who advocates individual liberty and promotes limited government. Contrary to National Sovereigntist assertions, the fundamental goal of International Federalism is indisputably libertarian. International Federalists, through detailed resolutions, seek to protect individual rights and liberties by trying to limit the powers of member states to oppress their inhabitants.

The International Federalist movement is less unified than the National Sovereignty movement only because of internal disagreements about what are and are not rights (e.g., abortion).

I largely agree with Christian Democrats here. (I'm surprised to see myself saying that.)

I believe that every individual in the world has a fundamental right to do whatever they please so long as they do not cause nonconsensual harm, and that every individual has the right to do whatever they please to their own bodies, and to not have done to their own bodies whatever they do not want done. I believe that the World Assembly should prohibit all member states from restricting the activities of individuals that do not cause nonconsensual harm, and that the World Assembly should require all member states to restrict activities that do cause nonconsensual harm. I believe that the World Assembly should prohibit all member states from infringing upon the bodily sovereignty of individuals.

This seems to me to be a very libertarian view, and I suspect that many others here agree with me. Where we likely disagree is on what activities cause nonconsensual harm, the definitions of "harm" and "consent," the definition of "individual," etc., not the basic principle.

(For example, I think that a fetus is not an individual, and Christian Democrats thinks that a fetus is an individual, so I believe that the World Assembly should prohibit member states from disallowing abortion and Christian Democrats believes that the World Assembly should require member states to disallow abortion. For another example, I think that removing the foreskin of the penis without that person's consent is nonconsensual harm, and Knootoss thinks that it is either not nonconsensual or not harmful (or perhaps I think that an infant is an individual while Knootoss thinks that an infant is not an individual), so I believe that the World Assembly should require member states to prohibit the circumcision of those who do not consent to it, while Knootoss thinks that the World Assembly should require member states to allow it.)

[Urgench]

And according to many definitions of Federalism, constitutionally delimited responsibilities are an inherent part of Federalism.

For what it's worth, federalism in the context of the European Union is usually depicted as far more centralized than in the United States.

Though of course the EU is still technically a confederation not a federation, and the US federal government has powers which not even the most intoxicated European federalists would dream of centralising in Brussels. The classic example of this much less ambitious European Federalism being the Euro; a monetary union without a fiscal union. Which rather begs the question, what do different political cultures regard as centralised federal government in the first place?

Knootoss is correct in pointing out that a part of the definition of federal government is the strict delineation of the powers of the central government and the clear circumscription of its relationship with the federated state and to point out that a central government with unlimited scope of action comprises the government of a unitary state rather than a federated (or indeed confederated) one.

As neither a NatSover nor an IntFeder I'm actually as interested as Knootoss is to know what avowed IntFeders believe is the desired or ideal constitutional relationship between the WA as federal government and its federated member states.

The argument about ontological points of view seems to me to be based on mutual misapprehension, NatSovers don't view the WA as a government of any kind whatsoever therefore no powers are devolved to it at all, it's member states merely agree to pool sovereignty to address issues they believe may best be dealt with communally. Therefore they are completely dissimilar to IntFeders who do regard the WA as a government from which or too which powers may be devolved. Presumably within the framework of whatever relationship IntFeders believe the WA and its members states are in there is scope for the WA to use its federal power to force its member states to agree to communal action even when the member states have seen no prior cause to deal with the issues in question communally.

But given that where discussing a federal system there must also be limits on when and why and how the WA forces its member states to act communally or otherwise the WA would be the government of a unitary state. No one has as yet given much of an indication of what these limits are and the political reasonings which motivate these structural relationships.


NB the above was written while excessively hungover.

[The Ainocran Embassy]

There is no single answer, just as NatSov has no single answer for what constitutes an important international issue. But, first, I want to correct your question. IntFed does not approach states' rights as, "What rights do states have?" The issue is approached as, "What rights do states not have?" Not only does this conform with the IntFed ontology, but it's also a far more practical question to answer. And as I said, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that states do not have the right to determine how they treat their people, in terms of human rights. Where you go from there largely depends on whether you're progressive, neoliberal, conservative, Marxist, etc.

This implies that states can do whatever the World Assembly says they cannot do. Since the World Assembly has default plenary authority, however, that does not imply that states have the right to do things that aren't restricted by the World Assembly. They are neither restricted or protected in actions that the World Assembly has not addressed.

Myself I approach it from a third viewpoint. What rights does the WA have in this given area? I feel that the Assembly has only the rights that the Assembly derives it powers from the consent of the governed and thus only has the authority we the Nations have granted it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

But given that where discussing a federal system there must also be limits on when and why and how the WA forces its member states to act communally or otherwise the WA would be the government of a unitary state. No one has as yet given much of an indication of what these limits are and the political reasonings which motivate these structural relationships.

The difficulty is that anybody who considers themselves IntFed might only share a single common belief with all other people who consider themselves IntFed: what you aptly described as the World Assembly existing as a government, rather than the collection of voluntarily-pooled sovereignty.

A Marxist would draw the limits of the World Assembly in a different place than would a free-market neoliberal or libertarian. It's similar in the United States: Democrats and Republicans do believe that there is a line to be drawn between states and the federal government, but where that line is drawn depends on what things Democrats and Republicans think are important.

I can give you an essay explaining what I think the agenda of the World Assembly can be. But it won't be the IntFed agenda. The same thing for Unibot, Christian Democrats, etc. So, if somebody really wants to know where "IntFed" draws the line, then they would need to read different statements by the various agenda-setters in the IntFed group.

[Urgench]

But given that where discussing a federal system there must also be limits on when and why and how the WA forces its member states to act communally or otherwise the WA would be the government of a unitary state. No one has as yet given much of an indication of what these limits are and the political reasonings which motivate these structural relationships.

The difficulty is that anybody who considers themselves IntFed might only share a single common belief with all other people who consider themselves IntFed: what you aptly described as the World Assembly existing as a government, rather than the collection of voluntarily-pooled sovereignty.

A Marxist would draw the limits of the World Assembly in a different place than would a free-market neoliberal or libertarian. It's similar in the United States: Democrats and Republicans do believe that there is a line to be drawn between states and the federal government, but where that line is drawn depends on what things Democrats and Republicans think are important.

I can give you an essay explaining what I think the agenda of the World Assembly can be. But it won't be the IntFed agenda. The same thing for Unibot, Christian Democrats, etc. So, if somebody really wants to know where "IntFed" draws the line, then they would need to read different statements by the various agenda-setters in the IntFed group.

Well by all means expound your view.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I agree. But Unibot et. al. are still crusading to have the "no army" rule removed. For a reason!

Well, if they (whoever they are) want everything to be fair game, then they are One-worlders, not proper IntFeds as I have considered the term in the past.

^ This. Absolutely this.

As a standard-bearer for International Federalism, I have been doing my best to avoid this thread and its silly exercise (on both sides) of one-upmanship. However, this needs to be said:

An International "Federation" with an Army, can no longer be called a Federation. It is a World Empire. Universal force is the end of Diplomacy and the Dark Dawn of Tyranny.

I am not sorry to point out that International Federalism is very different from World Imperialism. I will leave to the NatSovers to explain, if they wish, the difference between National Sovereignty and World Imperialism.

[Glen-Rhodes]

An International "Federation" with an Army, can no longer be called a Federation. It is a World Empire. Universal force is the end of Diplomacy and the Dark Dawn of Tyranny.

The only people I've ever seen seriously advocate for a World Assembly Army are newbies, and even that's relatively rare. If the World Assembly had an army, it would be a state in and of itself, and it would probably be the strongest state in existence and have a total monopoly on legitimate organized violence (war). I don't know of any IntFeds who want that. I know of two (myself and Unibot) who question the rule based on its logic and appropriateness.

But neither of us advocate for an Army, despite the frequently repeated assertions by NatSov members that we do. Both Unibot and I would like peacekeeping forces, which is a far cry from an army or any kind of armed force. I do feel it necessary to correct peoples' false accusations whenever they arise. But this shouldn't devolve into a discussion on the legitimacy of peacekeeping forces or of the No Army Rule, though, so this should probably be the last post on the subject.

I am not sorry to point out that International Federalism is very different from World Imperialism.

And you shouldn't be, as it is very different.

Well by all means expound your view.

I've been working on a kind of grand thesis of my own views on World Assembly power and what should be our agenda. It's a four part piece, so far, but only one section -- economic and trade policy -- is close to being finished.

[Urgench]

Well, if they (whoever they are) want everything to be fair game, then they are One-worlders, not proper IntFeds as I have considered the term in the past.

^ This. Absolutely this.

As a standard-bearer for International Federalism, I have been doing my best to avoid this thread and its silly exercise (on both sides) of one-upmanship. However, this needs to be said:

An International "Federation" with an Army, can no longer be called a Federation. It is a World Empire. Universal force is the end of Diplomacy and the Dark Dawn of Tyranny.

I am not sorry to point out that International Federalism is very different from World Imperialism. I will leave to the NatSovers to explain, if they wish, the difference between National Sovereignty and World Imperialism.

Well to be fair, the thread does offer a reasonable opportunity for an interesting discussion, it's about what we make of it.

I'm fairly conversant in the ideas which motivate most NatSovers, I'm less clear about the rationale behind IntFed, and I'm quite interested to read some theories and ideas.

I'd be very interested in your view.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I'm fairly conversant in the ideas which motivate most NatSovers, I'm less clear about the rationale behind IntFed, and I'm quite interested to read some theories and ideas.

I'd be very interested in your view.

Oh boy, it would require a treatise, as Koopman has made and as Glen-Rhodes said is making. If you have the time to wait...

[Sionis Prioratus]

What is International Federalism?

There can be little question that the attainment of a federation
of all humanity, together with a sufficient measure of social justice, to ensure
health, education, and a rough measure of equality of opportunity to most of
the children born into the world, would mean such a release and increase of
human energy as to open a new phase in human history.

— H.G.Wells

International Federalism is the belief that nations are better, individually and collectively, pursuing together common goals, than what they could hope to achieve by themselves. These goals include security, wellbeing, progress, knowledge. Federalism implicates a higher degree of union, ideally increasing efficiency in the process, yielding greater successes; of course there is a trade-off: in exchange for higher degrees of security, wellbeing, progress, knowledge, it is not uncommon that nations must surrender some traditional prerogatives. As an example, socially liberal nations, may not be willing to perform a deeper market integration, with free flow of goods and workers, with nations known for their mistreatment of women, and vice-versa.
Someone will have to make concessions. International Federalism is shared governance.

What International Federalism is not?

"They stood there, King of the Hill, Top of the Heap, Ruler of All They Surveyed,
Unimpeachable Monarchs and Presidents, trying to understand what it meant
to own a world and how big a world really was."

— Ray Bradbury (The Martian Chronicles)

True International Federalism is not a cabal of unelected despots, ruling the world according to their fleeting desires, having to respond to no one, with power over life and death, God-Emperors above men. That is a World Empire, not an International Federation. That is anathema to the concept of shared governance.

Why International Federalism?

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought,
but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

— Albert Einstein

People are afraid of the unknown. It is a basic instinct. Most isolationist countries, who refuse to partake in international federations, degenerate into a state of national psychosis where everything not-my-country is “the other”, therefore dangerous, should be avoided at all costs, and if possible, destroyed and conquered. Or they implode. The more nations adopt this ignorant view, the Worlds as a whole are less and less able to enjoy security, wellbeing, progress, knowledge. The natural result of this process is war, famine, lack of compassion, catastrophe.
Once a human being sees oneself as a part of a larger whole, the whole of sentience, it is contagious;
an international federalist hopes this contagion will eventually reach an entire country,
and then the entire World. Harmony ensues, despite the fallible human nature.

But you want to homogenize everything!

Internationalism does not mean the end of individual nations.
Orchestras don't mean the end of violins.

— Golda Meir, Ex-Prime Minister of Israel

That is the most stupid argument I hear once in a while from some NatSovers. Homogeneity is anathema to evolution. The reasons successful International Federations work is because they are diverse, not in spite of it.
A true International Federalist does not want to determine what you should or should not wear. But will want minimum standards of welfare so that you have the chance to buy clothes, should you want, or give you clothes, should you be amidst a national catastrophe.
A true International Federalist does not do that because he or she wants to see how awesome a person he or she is.
A true International Federalist does that, because we want the same compassion bestowed upon us, should our turn come.
A true International Federalist will not choose for you the person whom you should marry,
but will want to ensure that you are able to marry the person or persons you love,
no matter if of the same gender or different gender.
And will want to assure you have a way out of abusive relationships.

“Who do you think you are!? We hate Bigtopians, therefore…”

The test of courage comes when we are in the minority.
The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.

— Ralph W. Sockman

Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that practices and traditions once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the World Assembly endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. Some nations progress faster than other, and there will always be tension. But it is a tension that increases individual freedoms to pursue happiness, and not the opposite.

Does International Federalism know no limits?

Justice and power must be brought together,
so that whatever is just may be powerful,
and whatever is powerful may be just.

— Blaise Pascal

Not only it does have limits, but its limits define it. Cultural homogeneity kills progress, killing nations, killing the Federation itself. Cultural homogeneity also deprives the person of its individuality, taking from the person its sense of self, making everything seem meaningless and unchallenging. Also, the ultimate limit is military force; a Federation cannot have one. An Army and a Federation are mutually exclusive; the proverbial crossing of the Rubicon. Universal force is the end of Diplomacy and the Dark Dawn of Tyranny.

How can you assure me that International Federalism will not eventually degenerate into World Imperialism?

What has allowed so many PPs to rise so high in corporations,
and now in government, is that they are so decisive. They are going to do
something every fuckin' day and they are not afraid. Unlike normal people,
they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reasons that they don't give
a fuck what happens next. Simply can't. Do this! Do that! Mobilize the reserves!
Privatize the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody's telephone!
Cut taxes on the rich! Build a trillion-dollar missile shield! Fuck habeas corpus
and the Sierra Club and In These Times, and kiss my ass!
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know
what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president."

— Kurt Vonnegut (A Man Without a Country)

Short answer: I cannot, and neither can anyone else. Only one thing separates any International Federation from World Empire: eternal vigilance. The more centralized the power, the more it will attract persons who will want to seize it, grow it beyond any measure of decency, and never let go of it. Just as Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars, they come as wolves in sheep’s clothing. One thing is the Federation changing laws of the nations who freely belong to the Federation, and which can leave the Federation at will. Another wholly different thing, and dangerous without limit, is wanting to change the Federation itself. That cannot be. That is the end of liberty, and the end of the human race.

[Ardchoille]

Good old Alfie:

For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;

Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;

Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew
From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;

Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm,
With the standards of the peoples plunging thro' the thunder-storm;

Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,
And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapped in universal law.

... unfortunately, this is also the treatise in which he proclaimed that "I count the gray barbarian lower than the Christian child" and "Woman is the lesser man, and all thy passions, match'd with mine/Are as moonlight unto sunlight, and as water unto wine--", but he was IC being a guy in a dramatic snit at the time.

Still, the parliamentary part of the vision is what my international federalism aims for. Government by consent of the governed.

Though I'm not sure if those pilots of the purple twilight are Free Traders, which Ardchoille does its best to avoid ... compliantly, of course.

[Unibot II]

What is the National Sovereignty doctrine and what is International Federalism?
By Eduard Joùlæn Heir, Esq., BA, DCL, DLitt,

Ah yes -- the fundamental question that has probed humanity for literally centuries upon centuries... upon blah blah blah masturbation blah blah blah acid reflex blah disjunctive syllogism.. blah blah blah. Nevertheless, the anatomy of the National Sovereignty doctrine in relation to the International Federalist doctrine is fairly simple, actually, just no other professor wished to say it because .. well... everyone would question if the author shared the same disastrous beliefs as the one he is describing, like Freud and his Daddy-Love-Sex-Odipussy complex-thingy. I mean, imagine when that guy first explained THAT in public... you're first reaction would be to either declare the man brilliant or declare him as a sex-freak. But sometimes it takes a sex-freak to understand the irrational sexual frustration that undermines society, just like it takes a corrupt son-of-a-bitch to understand international political philosophy. I'm Doctor Eduard Heir, I received an honorary Doctor of Letters title from the University of Odessa and completed my Doctorate in Civil Law with Gesä last year for my treatise on Institutional liberalism entitled, Cluck You : The Story of the Chicken That Crossed The Road And Got Hit By A Volvo. I will now briefly explain my general observations of the General Assembly. International Federalists are people with the desire to pass as many resolution as possible to add to their resolution count, or in rare occasions, just people that benefit from others submitting many resolutions -- whether it be piggybacking on someone's legacy, building a regional legacy or having nothing to do in the GA if there wasn't copious amount of resolutions being submitted (i.e., a mod). Whereas, International Soverigntists are generally people that don't have the time, experience, opportunity or dedication to pass resolutions, but still have the desire to pass resolutions, so they psychologically resent resolutions being passed and thus vent out their frustration with hardcore sovereigntism. However it is not entirely black and white, some people are still International Federalists long after retiring from activity in the GA, but these people are few and rare -- they occur when they feel that won't be accepted into the National Soverigntry community without humiliation or degradation, so they cling to International Federalism and pretends it still satisfies as a doctrine long after it does anymore.

This explains most of my observations in the General Assembly. The typical politician begins as a Soverigntist, as they feel they do not have the experience or the power to pass resolutions, but after they take a leap of faith on a resolution, they feel empowered, and the transformation occurs into the International Federalist. The typical International Federalist will often retreat temporarily to Sovereigntism but only when another author is planning to write something that they wished they had written first. For example, an author writes an education bill... and you suddenly maintain the notion that only citizens should be educated -- I like to identify this as a pathological offense mechanism, resentment is once again a major psychological fuel to Sovereigntism. National Sovereignty is clearly a threat to the International Federalist, because National Sovereignty is so expedient -- one blocker can block numerous potential subjects to write about, Drug culture is nearly entirely blocked as a topic by GA#90 and an entire category would be basically blocked by GA#68, if the author had been more careful with their wording. This is why Soverigntists are such strong defenders of the rules of the WA and often want stricter rules whereas International Federalists want laxer rules in regards to the permissible content of resolutions -- rules are an amazing away at reducing the opportunities an author has to write a resolution, and both sides recognize this. On the subconscious level, those who harbor the National Sovereignty doctrine are antagonized and their doctrine is distorted in the minds of International Federalists and vice versa -- if one is to continue passing reckless amounts of resolutions it is pertinent to demean the philosophy that threatens that behavior by attacking the person and not necessarily the doctrine for the sake of political expediency. The goal of a forum dispute between International Federalists and Sovereigntism is not to come to some satisfiable conclusion but to demean either side till their doctrine looks self-serving and disgusting to everyone else reading the thread. Regla número uno of the General Assembly is: never try to convince your opponent, convince everybody else that your opponent is a moron or a self-serving, old or out-of-touch bastard or bitch, then as the audience's reputation and trust of your enemy is broken down, pick up the broken remains and use them to build up your own image. Discussion is warfare, and the strong International Federalist who wishes to protect his or her way of life must use every trick in the book to defeat one's enemy, always cover your back and never underestimate or trust your opponent to do anything but try to stab you in the back.

But living in distrust is an unpleasant way to live, so the International Federalists together rarely seek out repeals, they respect one another not to repeal one another work unless that work is seriously in the way of passing something that they want to pass -- the greedier and more resentful, the federalist author, the more likely they are to break this unofficial pact and begin trying repeal whatever. Eventually, however, everyone ends up at one point where they do not have the time to commit to passing lots of resolutions or at least a desirable number of resolution, and that is when the International Federalist transforms nearly indefinitely into the Soverigntist. They no longer can pass resolutions and they resent other authors for passing resolutions, many times on topics they wished they had codified... so instead they commit what little time they have to pass blockers which maximize the gain out of a resolution, by passing one blocker, you can potential block many future authors from passing resolutions. Therefore, blockers are the gold standard for the Soverigntist -- a Soverigntist's oxycontin, whereas repeals are merely Tylenol-3's for their venting frustration, resentment and angst. Mostly, when the transformation from International Federalist to Soverigntist is made.. it is made forever. Although, a transition can be made if the latent-federalist estimates the potential benefits of being free to pass resolutions once again are greater than that the societal humiliation and ostracization they will receive from their sovereignist cronies. It also is important for the latent-federalist to think that they could be once again accepted into the federalist community -- because remember, the informal and unspoken pact of no repeals is very important to the success of an International Federalist. A person who claims to be a 'mix' of the two philosophies is generally someone who is either, (1) busy for periods of a time then very free to pass resolutions -- these people may appear to be philosophically bi-polar, (2) good friends with Soverigntists or Federalists but now has more time or less time to dedicate to passing resolutions then they did before, so the use of a 'mixed' title is a weak attempt to maintain friends with 'the enemy' while also attending to the obvious pathological urges of a WA Author. My early findings in regards to the emerging "Centrism" in the World Assembly, is that Centrism is a strategic façade -- it is actually International Federalism under a different name to attract less attention from repeal-hungry soverigntists. Thus, in conclusion, the conceptual constructs of International Federalism and National Sovereigntism are purely pathological, they arise when the subject has a desire to pass resolutions or when something is denying them the opportunity to pass these resolutions. When this occurs, resentment ultimately manifests into the nearly incomprehensible political philosophies that we find ourselves struggling to understand from an analytical perspective.

AND THAT IS HOW A PSYCHO INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CRUMBLES...

[Hirota]

What is International Federalism?

The most accurate treatise on International Federalism I've seen for years. My compliments, ambassador.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: As the IntFeds generally seem to believe that every member nation should be required to do things in the same way that their own countries do, maybe we should re-label them as "Cultural Imperialists" -- or "Cult-Imps" for short -- instead?

[Hirota]

OOC: As the IntFeds generally seem to believe that every member nation should be required to do things in the same way that their own countries do, maybe we should re-label them as "Cultural Imperialists" -- or "Cult-Imps" for short -- instead?

<chuckles>

That's as accurate as suggesting that NatSovs generally seem to believe that the WA should do nothing and shouldn't exist. Maybe we should re-label them "Xenophobic bastards" whilst we are on this crusade to mislabel everything in sight?

[Ardchoille]

Maybe we should re-label them "Xenophobic bastards" whilst we are on this crusade to mislabel everything in sight?

I object. The short form would then be "XenoBas", which sounds like either a fashion label or a cafe chain. I don't think either of these quite suit the image.

Unfortunately. (I'd really like to see Senator Sulla sponsoring a fashion label and a cafe chain. Wild Turkey latte?)

In a polite nod to the topic, I'd be interested to hear what "Federalism" by itself -- forget the "international" -- means to players. I live, IRL, in a Federation. Australia's individual states were originally so stroppy about their independence that we had three different rail gauges with travellers having to change trains at each border and one town with two names, depending where you were standing at the time, and a customs gate right across the middle of the main street. Gradually, though, they're becoming accustomed to working together. It's even occasionally suggested by extremists like me that we don't actually need State governments, just the Feds to collect the taxes for national undertakings and local governments to put them to work.

If it comes to a State vs Federal crunch, the pressures aren't applied by armies, they're societal: the voters vote out the recalcitrant State government, a couple of other States decide to back the rebel because they can see they could be in the same boat one day, or somebody gets sick of the impasse and works to broker a compromise. So the idea of a federation of equal powers forming another, still equal, power, and achieving aims by talk and compromise rather than by force, seems natural to me.

How does the make-up or history of the RL nation you live in gel with your NS view of whether an international federation is achievable or desirable?

[Sionis Prioratus]

Ard, I'll answer your question, but I'm afraid it will take some time and length!

What is International Federalism?

The most accurate treatise on International Federalism I've seen for years. My compliments, ambassador.

Oh my, thank you! I deeply appreciate your sentiments!

On labeling people, I propose "World Imperalists" be called "W-Imps"

[Urgench]

What is the National Sovereignty doctrine and what is International Federalism?
By Eduard Joùlæn Heir, Esq., BA, DCL, DLitt,

(Image)

Ah yes -- the fundamental question that has probed humanity for literally centuries upon centuries... upon blah blah blah masturbation blah blah blah acid reflex blah disjunctive syllogism.. blah blah blah. Nevertheless, the anatomy of the National Sovereignty doctrine in relation to the International Federalist doctrine is fairly simple, actually, just no other professor wished to say it because .. well... everyone would question if the author shared the same disastrous beliefs as the one he is describing, like Freud and his Daddy-Love-Sex-Odipussy complex-thingy. I mean, imagine when that guy first explained THAT in public... you're first reaction would be to either declare the man brilliant or declare him as a sex-freak. But sometimes it takes a sex-freak to understand the irrational sexual frustration that undermines society, just like it takes a corrupt son-of-a-bitch to understand international political philosophy. I'm Doctor Eduard Heir, I received an honorary Doctor of Letters title from the University of Odessa and completed my Doctorate in Civil Law with Gesä last year for my treatise on Institutional liberalism entitled, Cluck You : The Story of the Chicken That Crossed The Road And Got Hit By A Volvo. I will now briefly explain my general observations of the General Assembly. International Federalists are people with the desire to pass as many resolution as possible to add to their resolution count, or in rare occasions, just people that benefit from others submitting many resolutions -- whether it be piggybacking on someone's legacy, building a regional legacy or having nothing to do in the GA if there wasn't copious amount of resolutions being submitted (i.e., a mod). Whereas, International Soverigntists are generally people that don't have the time, experience, opportunity or dedication to pass resolutions, but still have the desire to pass resolutions, so they psychologically resent resolutions being passed and thus vent out their frustration with hardcore sovereigntism. However it is not entirely black and white, some people are still International Federalists long after retiring from activity in the GA, but these people are few and rare -- they occur when they feel that won't be accepted into the National Soverigntry community without humiliation or degradation, so they cling to International Federalism and pretends it still satisfies as a doctrine long after it does anymore.

This explains most of my observations in the General Assembly. The typical politician begins as a Soverigntist, as they feel they do not have the experience or the power to pass resolutions, but after they take a leap of faith on a resolution, they feel empowered, and the transformation occurs into the International Federalist. The typical International Federalist will often retreat temporarily to Sovereigntism but only when another author is planning to write something that they wished they had written first. For example, an author writes an education bill... and you suddenly maintain the notion that only citizens should be educated -- I like to identify this as a pathological offense mechanism, resentment is once again a major psychological fuel to Sovereigntism. National Sovereignty is clearly a threat to the International Federalist, because National Sovereignty is so expedient -- one blocker can block numerous potential subjects to write about, Drug culture is nearly entirely blocked as a topic by GA#90 and an entire category would be basically blocked by GA#68, if the author had been more careful with their wording. This is why Soverigntists are such strong defenders of the rules of the WA and often want stricter rules whereas International Federalists want laxer rules in regards to the permissible content of resolutions -- rules are an amazing away at reducing the opportunities an author has to write a resolution, and both sides recognize this. On the subconscious level, those who harbor the National Sovereignty doctrine are antagonized and their doctrine is distorted in the minds of International Federalists and vice versa -- if one is to continue passing reckless amounts of resolutions it is pertinent to demean the philosophy that threatens that behavior by attacking the person and not necessarily the doctrine for the sake of political expediency. The goal of a forum dispute between International Federalists and Sovereigntism is not to come to some satisfiable conclusion but to demean either side till their doctrine looks self-serving and disgusting to everyone else reading the thread. Regla número uno of the General Assembly is: never try to convince your opponent, convince everybody else that your opponent is a moron or a self-serving, old or out-of-touch bastard or bitch, then as the audience's reputation and trust of your enemy is broken down, pick up the broken remains and use them to build up your own image. Discussion is warfare, and the strong International Federalist who wishes to protect his or her way of life must use every trick in the book to defeat one's enemy, always cover your back and never underestimate or trust your opponent to do anything but try to stab you in the back.

But living in distrust is an unpleasant way to live, so the International Federalists together rarely seek out repeals, they respect one another not to repeal one another work unless that work is seriously in the way of passing something that they want to pass -- the greedier and more resentful, the federalist author, the more likely they are to break this unofficial pact and begin trying repeal whatever. Eventually, however, everyone ends up at one point where they do not have the time to commit to passing lots of resolutions or at least a desirable number of resolution, and that is when the International Federalist transforms nearly indefinitely into the Soverigntist. They no longer can pass resolutions and they resent other authors for passing resolutions, many times on topics they wished they had codified... so instead they commit what little time they have to pass blockers which maximize the gain out of a resolution, by passing one blocker, you can potential block many future authors from passing resolutions. Therefore, blockers are the gold standard for the Soverigntist -- a Soverigntist's oxycontin, whereas repeals are merely Tylenol-3's for their venting frustration, resentment and angst. Mostly, when the transformation from International Federalist to Soverigntist is made.. it is made forever. Although, a transition can be made if the latent-federalist estimates the potential benefits of being free to pass resolutions once again are greater than that the societal humiliation and ostracization they will receive from their sovereignist cronies. It also is important for the latent-federalist to think that they could be once again accepted into the federalist community -- because remember, the informal and unspoken pact of no repeals is very important to the success of an International Federalist. A person who claims to be a 'mix' of the two philosophies is generally someone who is either, (1) busy for periods of a time then very free to pass resolutions -- these people may appear to be philosophically bi-polar, (2) good friends with Soverigntists or Federalists but now has more time or less time to dedicate to passing resolutions then they did before, so the use of a 'mixed' title is a weak attempt to maintain friends with 'the enemy' while also attending to the obvious pathological urges of a WA Author. My early findings in regards to the emerging "Centrism" in the World Assembly, is that Centrism is a strategic façade -- it is actually International Federalism under a different name to attract less attention from repeal-hungry soverigntists. Thus, in conclusion, the conceptual constructs of International Federalism and National Sovereigntism are purely pathological, they arise when the subject has a desire to pass resolutions or when something is denying them the opportunity to pass these resolutions. When this occurs, resentment ultimately manifests into the nearly incomprehensible political philosophies that we find ourselves struggling to understand from an analytical perspective.

AND THAT IS HOW A PSYCHO INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CRUMBLES...

OK well I'll start by thanking Sionis for his very thoughtful and interesting post, thanks Sionis



And secondly, to me the above quoted post does not seem to describe IntFed at all, it seems to describe some kind of highly personalised internal dialogue roughly pertaining to the contrasts between 1worlders and NatSovers.

Stripped of all the nonesense and psycho-babble what it looks like Uni, is that you've completely lost the Fed part in IntFed, and in the process misassociated motives to lots of different kinds of players. Certainly I suspect your opinion of centrists is incorrect, but not being one myself I wont pretend to speak for them.

[Unibot II]

What is the National Sovereignty doctrine and what is International Federalism?
By Eduard Joùlæn Heir, Esq., BA, DCL, DLitt,

(Image)

Ah yes -- the fundamental question that has probed humanity for literally centuries upon centuries... upon blah blah blah masturbation blah blah blah acid reflex blah disjunctive syllogism.. blah blah blah. Nevertheless, the anatomy of the National Sovereignty doctrine in relation to the International Federalist doctrine is fairly simple, actually, just no other professor wished to say it because .. well... everyone would question if the author shared the same disastrous beliefs as the one he is describing, like Freud and his Daddy-Love-Sex-Odipussy complex-thingy. I mean, imagine when that guy first explained THAT in public... you're first reaction would be to either declare the man brilliant or declare him as a sex-freak. But sometimes it takes a sex-freak to understand the irrational sexual frustration that undermines society, just like it takes a corrupt son-of-a-bitch to understand international political philosophy. I'm Doctor Eduard Heir, I received an honorary Doctor of Letters title from the University of Odessa and completed my Doctorate in Civil Law with Gesä last year for my treatise on Institutional liberalism entitled, Cluck You : The Story of the Chicken That Crossed The Road And Got Hit By A Volvo. I will now briefly explain my general observations of the General Assembly. International Federalists are people with the desire to pass as many resolution as possible to add to their resolution count, or in rare occasions, just people that benefit from others submitting many resolutions -- whether it be piggybacking on someone's legacy, building a regional legacy or having nothing to do in the GA if there wasn't copious amount of resolutions being submitted (i.e., a mod). Whereas, International Soverigntists are generally people that don't have the time, experience, opportunity or dedication to pass resolutions, but still have the desire to pass resolutions, so they psychologically resent resolutions being passed and thus vent out their frustration with hardcore sovereigntism. However it is not entirely black and white, some people are still International Federalists long after retiring from activity in the GA, but these people are few and rare -- they occur when they feel that won't be accepted into the National Soverigntry community without humiliation or degradation, so they cling to International Federalism and pretends it still satisfies as a doctrine long after it does anymore.

This explains most of my observations in the General Assembly. The typical politician begins as a Soverigntist, as they feel they do not have the experience or the power to pass resolutions, but after they take a leap of faith on a resolution, they feel empowered, and the transformation occurs into the International Federalist. The typical International Federalist will often retreat temporarily to Sovereigntism but only when another author is planning to write something that they wished they had written first. For example, an author writes an education bill... and you suddenly maintain the notion that only citizens should be educated -- I like to identify this as a pathological offense mechanism, resentment is once again a major psychological fuel to Sovereigntism. National Sovereignty is clearly a threat to the International Federalist, because National Sovereignty is so expedient -- one blocker can block numerous potential subjects to write about, Drug culture is nearly entirely blocked as a topic by GA#90 and an entire category would be basically blocked by GA#68, if the author had been more careful with their wording. This is why Soverigntists are such strong defenders of the rules of the WA and often want stricter rules whereas International Federalists want laxer rules in regards to the permissible content of resolutions -- rules are an amazing away at reducing the opportunities an author has to write a resolution, and both sides recognize this. On the subconscious level, those who harbor the National Sovereignty doctrine are antagonized and their doctrine is distorted in the minds of International Federalists and vice versa -- if one is to continue passing reckless amounts of resolutions it is pertinent to demean the philosophy that threatens that behavior by attacking the person and not necessarily the doctrine for the sake of political expediency. The goal of a forum dispute between International Federalists and Sovereigntism is not to come to some satisfiable conclusion but to demean either side till their doctrine looks self-serving and disgusting to everyone else reading the thread. Regla número uno of the General Assembly is: never try to convince your opponent, convince everybody else that your opponent is a moron or a self-serving, old or out-of-touch bastard or bitch, then as the audience's reputation and trust of your enemy is broken down, pick up the broken remains and use them to build up your own image. Discussion is warfare, and the strong International Federalist who wishes to protect his or her way of life must use every trick in the book to defeat one's enemy, always cover your back and never underestimate or trust your opponent to do anything but try to stab you in the back.

But living in distrust is an unpleasant way to live, so the International Federalists together rarely seek out repeals, they respect one another not to repeal one another work unless that work is seriously in the way of passing something that they want to pass -- the greedier and more resentful, the federalist author, the more likely they are to break this unofficial pact and begin trying repeal whatever. Eventually, however, everyone ends up at one point where they do not have the time to commit to passing lots of resolutions or at least a desirable number of resolution, and that is when the International Federalist transforms nearly indefinitely into the Soverigntist. They no longer can pass resolutions and they resent other authors for passing resolutions, many times on topics they wished they had codified... so instead they commit what little time they have to pass blockers which maximize the gain out of a resolution, by passing one blocker, you can potential block many future authors from passing resolutions. Therefore, blockers are the gold standard for the Soverigntist -- a Soverigntist's oxycontin, whereas repeals are merely Tylenol-3's for their venting frustration, resentment and angst. Mostly, when the transformation from International Federalist to Soverigntist is made.. it is made forever. Although, a transition can be made if the latent-federalist estimates the potential benefits of being free to pass resolutions once again are greater than that the societal humiliation and ostracization they will receive from their sovereignist cronies. It also is important for the latent-federalist to think that they could be once again accepted into the federalist community -- because remember, the informal and unspoken pact of no repeals is very important to the success of an International Federalist. A person who claims to be a 'mix' of the two philosophies is generally someone who is either, (1) busy for periods of a time then very free to pass resolutions -- these people may appear to be philosophically bi-polar, (2) good friends with Soverigntists or Federalists but now has more time or less time to dedicate to passing resolutions then they did before, so the use of a 'mixed' title is a weak attempt to maintain friends with 'the enemy' while also attending to the obvious pathological urges of a WA Author. My early findings in regards to the emerging "Centrism" in the World Assembly, is that Centrism is a strategic façade -- it is actually International Federalism under a different name to attract less attention from repeal-hungry soverigntists. Thus, in conclusion, the conceptual constructs of International Federalism and National Sovereigntism are purely pathological, they arise when the subject has a desire to pass resolutions or when something is denying them the opportunity to pass these resolutions. When this occurs, resentment ultimately manifests into the nearly incomprehensible political philosophies that we find ourselves struggling to understand from an analytical perspective.

AND THAT IS HOW A PSYCHO INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CRUMBLES...

OK well I'll start by thanking Sionis for his very thoughtful and interesting post, thanks Sionis



And secondly, to me the above quoted post does not seem to describe IntFed at all, it seems to describe some kind of highly personalised internal dialogue roughly pertaining to the contrasts between 1worlders and NatSovers.

Stripped of all the nonesense and psycho-babble what it looks like Uni, is that you've completely lost the Fed part in IntFed, and in the process misassociated motives to lots of different kinds of players. Certainly I suspect your opinion of centrists is incorrect, but not being one myself I wont pretend to speak for them.

It was mostly a joke written at 5 o' clock in the morning. *pats*

[Socklund]

I believe the Socklundian representation can be classified as centrist. It is our position that nations can generally be trusted to act rationally, and that a rational nation is the best-qualified entity to determine its own affairs. We extend greater trust to individuals, however, and to communities. We assume that corporations will be rational, but do not believe a corporation's self-interest lines up with most anyone else's. As such, we generally support Human Rights and Social Justice legislation. We prefer laws to go into detail and be highly difficult to pervert the intent of, where we find them necessary. A nation which sees fit to use torture, or bio-weapons, or to employ child labor, is not one that will take kindly to a WA mandate that they desist.

To sum up, we feel the WA should have a conservative scope, but our conception of a well-written resolution lines up with that of IntFeds. So no, nothing whatsoever to do with getting Socklundian resolutions passed or resentment or whatever it is Eduard was on about.

[Knootoss]

I cannot understand why any libertarian would be a National Sovereigntist. A libertarian is someone who advocates individual liberty and promotes limited government. Contrary to National Sovereigntist assertions, the fundamental goal of International Federalism is indisputably libertarian. International Federalists, through detailed resolutions, seek to protect individual rights and liberties by trying to limit the powers of member states to oppress their inhabitants.

The International Federalist movement is less unified than the National Sovereignty movement only because of internal disagreements about what are and are not rights (e.g., abortion).

I largely agree with Christian Democrats here. (I'm surprised to see myself saying that.)

I believe that every individual in the world has a fundamental right to do whatever they please so long as they do not cause nonconsensual harm, and that every individual has the right to do whatever they please to their own bodies, and to not have done to their own bodies whatever they do not want done. I believe that the World Assembly should prohibit all member states from restricting the activities of individuals that do not cause nonconsensual harm, and that the World Assembly should require all member states to restrict activities that do cause nonconsensual harm. I believe that the World Assembly should prohibit all member states from infringing upon the bodily sovereignty of individuals.

This seems to me to be a very libertarian view, and I suspect that many others here agree with me. Where we likely disagree is on what activities cause nonconsensual harm, the definitions of "harm" and "consent," the definition of "individual," etc., not the basic principle.

(For example, I think that a fetus is not an individual, and Christian Democrats thinks that a fetus is an individual, so I believe that the World Assembly should prohibit member states from disallowing abortion and Christian Democrats believes that the World Assembly should require member states to disallow abortion. For another example, I think that removing the foreskin of the penis without that person's consent is nonconsensual harm, and Knootoss thinks that it is either not nonconsensual or not harmful (or perhaps I think that an infant is an individual while Knootoss thinks that an infant is not an individual), so I believe that the World Assembly should require member states to prohibit the circumcision of those who do not consent to it, while Knootoss thinks that the World Assembly should require member states to allow it.)

You argue the (libertarian) point of view, that the World Assembly should act to stop non-consensual harm. Seeing as I included this in my opening post, you may have guessed that I agree with this principle. However, does Quelesh also agree with the necessary corollary that the World Assembly should then keep it's nose out of everything else?

Because you know, saying that you believe the government should stop non-consensual harm and also provide free pie to everyone who would like some is empathically not a libertarian point of view. And the latter type of resolutions are the ones that NatSovers most pointedly object to.

I also object to this misrepresentation of my motives for the Male Circumcision resolution and would urge you to read the debate, where my views on the subject matter have been expounded upon at length.

[Knootoss]

In response to the various Glen-Rhodes posts, but also (I believe) in response to the interesting questions posed Ardchoille:

I am a European Federalist in real life. I am therefore worried by what I feel are misinformed conceptions that have been voiced by Glen-Rhodes and Unibot about the nature of international federalism, particularly as it relates to Europe. The crude dimension is economic. Spending of the European Union is only about 1% of GDP. More important is that limitations on EU power have been constitutionally enacted in the various treaties. Importantly:

• The principle of conferral: that all EU competences are conferred on it voluntarily by member states
• The principle of subsidiarity: that governmental decisions should be taken at the lowest level possible while still remaining effective
• The principle of proportionality: that the EU may only act to exactly the extent that is needed to achieve its objectives

The Principle of Subsidiarity is especially key here. To quote more, since I feel this point is especially important: "Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level."

More specific dimensions related to the concept of subsidiarity, which are layed out in protocols with the treaty of Maastricht and which were also part of the European Constitution, for the EU to act:

• The action must be necessary because actions of individuals or member-state governments alone will not achieve the objectives of the action (the sufficiency criterion)
• The action must bring added value over and above what could be achieved by individual or member-state government action alone (the benefit criterion).
• Decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizen (the close to the citizen criterion)
• The action should secure greater freedoms for the individual (the autonomy criterion).

These principles are core tenets of "good governance" and liberal democracy. However, they are explicitly rejected by IntFed authors such as Glen-Rhodes, whose resolutions regularly ride roughshot over these tenets. If the limitations on the power of the central unit (the World Assembly) depend solely on the personal likes and dislikes of resolution writers such as Glen-Rhodes and Unibot, then there really are no principled or 'constitutional' limitations at all. After all, "Where you go from there largely depends on whether you're progressive, neoliberal, conservative, Marxist, etc.", but the direction is always towards more regulation, and a stronger, more intrusive World Assembly. Without constitutional, principled limitations on what the World Assembly might do, there is nothing to separate the WA from a unitary and potentially all-encompassing government.

So yeah, as a European Federalist, I feel myself most at home with the NatSovs, who are generally speaking a bastion for common sense principles of good governance.

[Knootoss]

I think Sionis Prioratus wrote a very interesting article, and I was going to compose a separate response to it, but really what I'd like to know first if he can support the limitations that I mentioned in my previous posting. And if not, why not?

[Sionis Prioratus]

• The action must be necessary because actions of individuals or member-state governments alone will not achieve the objectives of the action (the sufficiency criterion)
• The action must bring added value over and above what could be achieved by individual or member-state government action alone (the benefit criterion).
• Decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizen (the close to the citizen criterion)
• The action should secure greater freedoms for the individual (the autonomy criterion).

I would say that every single one of the resolutions that I submitted that were passed, comply with these objectives. I know you disagree with a lot of them, but that would fall into disagreements based "on whether you're progressive, neoliberal, conservative, Marxist, etc." As I said on my treatise, someone's always going to concede something. Certainly there are some extant resolutions which comply with all the criterions above that I abhor, and yet I am still part of the Federation.