NationStates

Hello!

I have placed into existence a new region, known as The Council of Freedom, which is designed to invade regions with tyrannical or corrupt governments, and set up democracies in their place.

If anybody is interested in being on the front lines of the fight for freedom, I invite you to stand with me and join my region.

Bump.

What if the members don't want a democracy?

Beautiful...

Aclion wrote:What if the members don't want a democracy?

The members of the Council? The region is only for those who support democracy.

Or the members of the invaded regions? I dont think they get a choice.

Are monarchies tolerated by your group? Some of my regions are constitutional monarchies, in which the monarch is the permanent head of state, while the head of government is led by a popularly-elected Prime Minister. In these instances the monarch is a completely ceremonial head of state. In others, however, the monarch may possess the same powers as the Prime Minister and effectively controls the regional government; the Prime Minister (still elected by the people) acts as an adviser to the monarch and/or carries out his/her orders when needed.

Byzanthia wrote:Are monarchies tolerated by your group? Some of my regions are constitutional monarchies, in which the monarch is the permanent head of state, while the head of government is led by a popularly-elected Prime Minister. In these instances the monarch is a completely ceremonial head of state. In others, however, the monarch may possess the same powers as the Prime Minister and effectively controls the regional government; the Prime Minister (still elected by the people) acts as an adviser to the monarch and/or carries out his/her orders when needed.

I imaginethat monarchies could be, under certain circumstances, tolerable. As far as monarchy or constitutional monarchy or any other form of autocracy goes, I dont strictly have a problem with the government form in and of itself. I just have a problem with highly authroitative governments that are highly involved in the lives of people, restricting their freedom.

There is a concept known as 'Tyranny of the Masses,' the idea being that a democracy can be just as tyrannical as an autocratic state. I would rush just as fast to shut down such a democracy.

So, yes, monarchies that preserve the freedoms of the people and do not overly restrict the citizenry are acceptable in my mind, though corrupt an tyrannical monarchies, the same as any corrupt or tyrannical government, must be shut down.

Rebels and Saints wrote:

Byzanthia wrote:Are monarchies tolerated by your group? Some of my regions are constitutional monarchies, in which the monarch is the permanent head of state, while the head of government is led by a popularly-elected Prime Minister. In these instances the monarch is a completely ceremonial head of state. In others, however, the monarch may possess the same powers as the Prime Minister and effectively controls the regional government; the Prime Minister (still elected by the people) acts as an adviser to the monarch and/or carries out his/her orders when needed.

I imaginethat monarchies could be, under certain circumstances, tolerable. As far as monarchy or constitutional monarchy or any other form of autocracy goes, I dont strictly have a problem with the government form in and of itself. I just have a problem with highly authroitative governments that are highly involved in the lives of people, restricting their freedom.

There is a concept known as 'Tyranny of the Masses,' the idea being that a democracy can be just as tyrannical as an autocratic state. I would rush just as fast to shut down such a democracy.

So, yes, monarchies that preserve the freedoms of the people and do not overly restrict the citizenry are acceptable in my mind, though corrupt an tyrannical monarchies, the same as any corrupt or tyrannical government, must be shut down.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying that.

power may come from the muzzle of a gun. freedom doesn't.
the binary opposite of freedom is the dominance of aggressiveness and the normalization of harassment.
whatever statistical tendencies some forms of government might have,
none of them can create freedom.
only universal mutual consideration, and with the aid of logic, in the service of universally mutual consideration, among sapient beings can.

i used to have this idea too, when i was a very young child, that freedom was something you could invade a country and give to people.
by the time i reached adolescence i had learned from observation it simply does not and cannot work this way.
granted a government can steal freedom, but only an equitable culture can grant it.
and cultures aren't something that can be imposed either.
laws can only statistically influence them to a degree,
but a culture is the consensus of the values of its constituents,
each arising spontaneously from each individual heart and mind.

>We like freedom
>Lets subjugate entire regions

pick one

Rebels and Saints wrote:Bump.

Please don't bump spam. It had been barely an hour between the original post and this spammy bump; limit bumps to once per day/thread has fallen off the first page, whichever is longer. Additionally, merely bumping your thread without any substance or new content is not a good way to make your region look attractive to potential recruits.

Cameroi wrote:power may come from the muzzle of a gun. freedom doesn't.
the binary opposite of freedom is the dominance of aggressiveness and the normalization of harassment.
whatever statistical tendencies some forms of government might have,
none of them can create freedom.
only universal mutual consideration, and with the aid of logic, in the service of universally mutual consideration, among sapient beings can.

i used to have this idea too, when i was a very young child, that freedom was something you could invade a country and give to people.
by the time i reached adolescence i had learned from observation it simply does not and cannot work this way.
granted a government can steal freedom, but only an equitable culture can grant it.
and cultures aren't something that can be imposed either.
laws can only statistically influence them to a degree,
but a culture is the consensus of the values of its constituents,
each arising spontaneously from each individual heart and mind.

Okay, let's try to answer this despite the mild confusion of its structure.

I understand and agree that invading a nation isnt really a way to give them freedom. The hope is that democracy is the most proficient government type at providing freedom, and the aim of the invasion would be to restructure the government in such a way.

Further, I would not say the normalization of aggression is inherently the opposite of freedom. Anarchy, indisputably the most free form of society, very quickly normalizes aggression.

The aim of these liberations is not to normalize aggression, but to give a one-time, fiery takedown of a cruel and tyrannical government. Take, for example, the Allied Invasion of Nazi occupied France. Did the Allies bring freedom to France? Not necessarily. But they brought down a tyrannical government and put a democracy up in its place, which helped them to secure their place as a leading cultural nation, and one of the most free in the world.

Reploid Productions wrote:

Rebels and Saints wrote:Bump.

Please don't bump spam. It had been barely an hour between the original post and this spammy bump; limit bumps to once per day/thread has fallen off the first page, whichever is longer. Additionally, merely bumping your thread without any substance or new content is not a good way to make your region look attractive to potential recruits.

Apologies. I will avoid doing this in the future.

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:>We like freedom
>Lets subjugate entire regions

pick one

Subjugation is not the aim of the Council.

Rebels and Saints wrote:

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:>We like freedom
>Lets subjugate entire regions

pick one

Subjugation is not the aim of the Council.

Liberation is just subjucation but for democracies

Rebels and Saints wrote:

Aclion wrote:What if the members don't want a democracy?

I dont think they get a choice.

That's not very democratic.
Wont they just immediately vote to reinstall the undemocratic regime?

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:

Rebels and Saints wrote:
Subjugation is not the aim of the Council.

Liberation is just subjucation but for democracies

The Council only aims to liberate regions in which there is a significant outcry from the populace against the government. That is, primarily in invaded regions.

Aclion wrote:

Rebels and Saints wrote:I dont think they get a choice.

That's not very democratic.
Wont they just immediately vote to reinstall the undemocratic regime?

They might, eventually. If you read my explanation of liberation on the region page, you will see that liberation forces will stay in power, regardless of the opinion of the citizenry, until a functioning democracy can be set up.

And, as for not getting a choice, that was primarily in reference to the nations being ousted from power. Apologies there. My wording was awkward.

Rebels and Saints wrote:

Aclion wrote:That's not very democratic.
Wont they just immediately vote to reinstall the undemocratic regime?

They might, eventually. If you read my explanation of liberation on the region page, you will see that liberation forces will stay in power, regardless of the opinion of the citizenry, until a functioning democracy can be set up.

And, as for not getting a choice, that was primarily in reference to the nations being ousted from power. Apologies there. My wording was awkward.

"regardless of the opinion of the citizenry"

sounds a lot like force to me

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:

Rebels and Saints wrote:
They might, eventually. If you read my explanation of liberation on the region page, you will see that liberation forces will stay in power, regardless of the opinion of the citizenry, until a functioning democracy can be set up.

And, as for not getting a choice, that was primarily in reference to the nations being ousted from power. Apologies there. My wording was awkward.

"regardless of the opinion of the citizenry"

sounds a lot like force to me

Force is used, yes. I thought that was well understood.

Rebels and Saints wrote:

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:"regardless of the opinion of the citizenry"

sounds a lot like force to me

Force is used, yes. I thought that was well understood.

So why is your force different from the force of those you oppose

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:

Rebels and Saints wrote:
Force is used, yes. I thought that was well understood.

So why is your force different from the force of those you oppose

The process is no different. The cause and results set us apart.
In typical invader regimes, the goal is to invade regions and gain control. In the Council, the goal is to oust invaders, stabilize a region, and then leave, returning it to its inhabitants.

And if the people want to be invaders? Regions operate on a volunteer basis lol

Rebels and Saints wrote:

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:So why is your force different from the force of those you oppose

The process is no different. The cause and results set us apart.
In typical invader regimes, the goal is to invade regions and gain control. In the Council, the goal is to oust invaders, stabilize a region, and then leave, returning it to its inhabitants.

So first you wanted to remove tyrants, now you want to remove invaders? What if the founder is the tyrant, would you try to fight that if given the option? They are a native, they just run their region differently that you would like

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:And if the people want to be invaders? Regions operate on a volunteer basis lol

Then we do not intervene. I know regions are run on a volunteer basis. I said that we will only intervene when there is significant wish for us to do so.