International Freedom Coalition (SignUp2/OOC)

[Krjder]

We have free and fair elections though, we are a democracy.

I have like 11 political parties and somehow get labeled as "anti-democratic", meanwhile you run around with what's pretty much a dictatorship and get away with saying stuff like this...

Direct democracy for the win!!!

[Roski]

I have like 11 political parties and somehow get labeled as "anti-democratic", meanwhile you run around with what's pretty much a dictatorship and get away with saying stuff like this...

There are several reasons for why my country's political system is as it is.

I don't want to clog this thread up, however we can continue this via telegrams.

Free and fair

yes

how many people disappeared?

[The Lendol Archipelago]

You're part dog?!

As in the people who live in Newfoundland

Of course I'm joking. A smiley couldn't have hurt though.

[Novo Wagondia]

Do you mind if my President release a public statement offering condolences?

Go ahead ... I'll have a dedicated Funeral/Wake thread up in the next 24 hours for those interested in attending

The King is dead?! The Wagain people will be devastated

You'll be proud to know I'm Irish.

I have no claim to a direct background, though there's Scottish on one side of my family, and Newfoundlander on the other side (that would be a Irish, French, Mikmaq, English mix on that side)

Any German Americans here? Eh? Eh?

[Imperial Valaran]

I wonder, with this new burst of activity, how the old IFC is doing?

[The New Lowlands]

Even when they don't hold any actual power, it's still a symbolic gesture that puts one person or family above the ordinary citizens.

tfw i agree with Inyursta

[Novo Wagondia]

Even when they don't hold any actual power, it's still a symbolic gesture that puts one person or family above the ordinary citizens.

tfw i agree with Inyursta

We don't see an issue with it, so long as the monarch is accountable to the people. The monarch serves as a rallying point for all citizens, regardless of creed, to gather around and support, similar to how anti-communism is such a unifying force for SACTO. The monarch is also expected to spend his time serving his people by representing their views domestically and abroad; nurturing the growth of the country and serving as a high-profile voice for the community, especially those groups who have little influence on their own. The monarch lives on a state pension, so they do not have to pursue a profession like most people, and can instead dedicate all of their time towards good governance and working with their citizenry, especially by doing things that most congresspeople don't have time to do, like serving as a patron for the arts, and visiting remote areas of the country to keep up morale. If there ever is a corrupt or ineffective monarch, the entirely democratically elected congress can censure them and remove them from office (and even good monarchs share power with the elected prime minister). And if nothing else,the tourism revenue from all the imperial residences and possessions is a major boost to the economy.

[New Carloso]

You're part dog?!

As in the people who live in Newfoundland

And theres only the two parties? Does Ardoki have a two-party system?

Ahhh... it's good to have more than two parties!

I know

Carloso has a mutli-party system with a system of proportional representation with a single transferable vote like in Ireland and Malta (imo, the best voting system at present). There are dozens or parties but the primary ones which have seats in parliament are the CCDU (centre-right), the Conservative Party (centre-right), the Centre Party (centre) and the SDPC (centre-left).

The next elections are due a day or two before the 1 February 2016.

[Inyourfaceistan]

tfw i agree with Inyursta

We don't see an issue with it, so long as the monarch is accountable to the people. The monarch serves as a rallying point for all citizens, regardless of creed, to gather around and support, similar to how anti-communism is such a unifying force for SACTO. The monarch is also expected to spend his time serving his people by representing their views domestically and abroad; nurturing the growth of the country and serving as a high-profile voice for the community, especially those groups who have little influence on their own. The monarch lives on a state pension, so they do not have to pursue a profession like most people, and can instead dedicate all of their time towards good governance and working with their citizenry, especially by doing things that most congresspeople don't have time to do, like serving as a patron for the arts, and visiting remote areas of the country to keep up morale. (and even good monarchs share power with the elected prime minister). And if nothing else,the tourism revenue from all the imperial residences and possessions is a major boost to the economy.

I'm not certain how people will rally around an individual or royal family when their very existence - even if entirely symbolic - is pretty much a constant reminder of their status as second-class citizens...
I mean as much as people complain about wealth or capital being somehow promoters of inequality (which I don't really buy) even having an established ruler with such a title is basically confirming and approving of state-enforced enequality.

Plus I could go into how monarchies are an outdated relic of ancient times, the dark ages, ect. and above all the colonial era; and they should have fallen long ago to the trashbin of history in favor of infinitely better options; but I will save that for another time/IC banter.

If there ever is a corrupt or ineffective monarch, the entirely democratically elected congress can censure them and remove them from office

I'm fairly certain a freedom-fighter with a .50 BMG rifle could ensure this just as effectively...

---

As far as everyone talking about electoral systems, this is what we use:
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=inyo ... /id=331650

And a detailed list of our political parties:
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=inyo ... /id=326277

[Macedonia propper]

Hemp

[Allanea]

I'm not certain how people will rally around an individual or royal family when their very existence - even if entirely symbolic - is pretty much a constant reminder of their status as second-class citizens...

And yet history has endless examples of monarchs that were beloved by their people.

[Brytene]

I'm not certain how people will rally around an individual or royal family when their very existence - even if entirely symbolic - is pretty much a constant reminder of their status as second-class citizens...
I mean as much as people complain about wealth or capital being somehow promoters of inequality (which I don't really buy) even having an established ruler with such a title is basically confirming and approving of state-enforced enequality.

[Krjder]

We don't see an issue with it, so long as the monarch is accountable to the people. The monarch serves as a rallying point for all citizens, regardless of creed, to gather around and support, similar to how anti-communism is such a unifying force for SACTO. The monarch is also expected to spend his time serving his people by representing their views domestically and abroad; nurturing the growth of the country and serving as a high-profile voice for the community, especially those groups who have little influence on their own. The monarch lives on a state pension, so they do not have to pursue a profession like most people, and can instead dedicate all of their time towards good governance and working with their citizenry, especially by doing things that most congresspeople don't have time to do, like serving as a patron for the arts, and visiting remote areas of the country to keep up morale. (and even good monarchs share power with the elected prime minister). And if nothing else,the tourism revenue from all the imperial residences and possessions is a major boost to the economy.

I'm not certain how people will rally around an individual or royal family when their very existence - even if entirely symbolic - is pretty much a constant reminder of their status as second-class citizens...
I mean as much as people complain about wealth or capital being somehow promoters of inequality (which I don't really buy) even having an established ruler with such a title is basically confirming and approving of state-enforced enequality.

Plus I could go into how monarchies are an outdated relic of ancient times, the dark ages, ect. and above all the colonial era; and they should have fallen long ago to the trashbin of history in favor of infinitely better options; but I will save that for another time/IC banter.

If there ever is a corrupt or ineffective monarch, the entirely democratically elected congress can censure them and remove them from office

I'm fairly certain a freedom-fighter with a .50 BMG rifle could ensure this just as effectively...

---

As far as everyone talking about electoral systems, this is what we use:
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=inyo ... /id=331650

And a detailed list of our political parties:
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=inyo ... /id=326277

You forget that many people aren't particularly averse to accepting that there are a ruling elite. I'm sure even in your country, there are a few old families which have children in the military, legislative and judicial branches, not to mention probably owning 45-50% of the nation's businesses. In every country people are reminded of their status as 2nd class citizens by some people/person at the top. It's just in a monarchy when those people happen to be from the same family. And monarchs are a living relic of heritage, they can serve the people and create revenue from their estates, ceremonial guards and events and other things.

I understand that where you've come from, you were previously ruled by presumably a Spanish monarch prior to independence who treated your nation like shit and I'm sorry if that's your established view of every monarch/y. But I'm a European, from a nation with a monarchy that's had little blood on its hands and remains mostly popular as a national figure.

And as for your suggestion of shooting them, that's slightly uncalled for. After all, I can turn your own argument on you; is it their fault they were born into a dynastic all family..?

[United States of Conner]

Go ahead ... I'll have a dedicated Funeral/Wake thread up in the next 24 hours for those interested in attending

The King is dead?! The Wagain people will be devastated

I have no claim to a direct background, though there's Scottish on one side of my family, and Newfoundlander on the other side (that would be a Irish, French, Mikmaq, English mix on that side)

Any German Americans here? Eh? Eh?

DEUTCHLAND STRONK
I'm like 50-50 Irish-German.

[Inyourfaceistan]

You forget that many people aren't particularly averse to accepting that there are a ruling elite. I'm sure even in your country, there are a few old families which have children in the military, legislative and judicial branches, not to mention probably owning 45-50% of the nation's businesses. In every country people are reminded of their status as 2nd class citizens by some people/person at the top.

Not really, in a true republic the people on top are just really lucky/hard workers.

In a monarchy they are born into the title which serves as a bloody reminder of the infinite sins of the crown and symbolically they will always remain oppressed so long as their is some asshole out their willing to call himself king and rule with an iron fist, even if "ceremonially"...

It's just in a monarchy when those people happen to be from the same family. And monarchs are a living relic of heritage, they can serve the people and create revenue from their estates, ceremonial guards and events and other things.

And also leech of the public's taxes.

I understand that where you've come from, you were previously ruled by presumably a Spanish monarch prior to independence who treated your nation like shit and I'm sorry if that's your established view of every monarch/y. But I'm a European, from a nation with a monarchy that's had little blood on its hands and remains mostly popular as a national figure.

Actually it was the British that treated us like shit.
But before my ancestors left that hellhole of a continent and fled to the New World, yes the Spanish were equally as culpable in the oppression of my family...

But my point still stands.
The English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, German, Belgian, Tsars, Ottomans, Saudis, Imperial Japan, Imperial China, North Korea, Incas, Aztecs you name it almost everywhere there were kings or emperors there was indefensible oppression and destruction.

I'm not saying true republics are free of sin by any means, I'm just pointing out that monarchy is one of the oldest evil ideologies there is, pre-dating communism and fascism by a long shot and yet for whatever reason flaming hypocrites act like it can somehow ever in a million years be compatible with the idea of freedom.

And as for your suggestion of shooting them, that's slightly uncalled for. After all, I can turn your own argument on you; is it their fault they were born into a dynastic all family..?

It's their fault they didn't abdicate and abolish the throne.

I'm not certain how people will rally around an individual or royal family when their very existence - even if entirely symbolic - is pretty much a constant reminder of their status as second-class citizens...

And yet history has endless examples of monarchs that were beloved by their people.

Your right. I was wrong.

I failed to realize how blind sheep people can be most of the time; and that even Hitler and Mao were loved by their people...

As far as real life goes I do not believe in randomly overthrowing monarchs "because freedom". Realpolitik is a thing and certain regions yield few better options than the notoriously distasteful notion of kingship or imperial elite (I.e. Jordan).
I also fully acknowledge that other, more tolerable ideologies are by no means clean of past crimes in their own right.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Any German Americans here? Eh? Eh?

DEUTCHLAND STRONK
I'm like 50-50 Irish-German.

French, Irish, Scottish and Basque, with a little bit of Welsh, Dutch, Cherokee and Mattaponi.

110% 'Murican

[New Aeyariss]

DEUTCHLAND STRONK
I'm like 50-50 Irish-German.

French, Irish, Scottish and Basque, with a little bit of Welsh, Dutch, Cherokee and Mattaponi.

110% 'Murican

Only Polish.

Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna!

[Allanea]

Wait wait.

Is it Inyourfaceistan's IC stance that all royals should be executed where possible?

[Krjder]

French, Irish, Scottish and Basque, with a little bit of Welsh, Dutch, Cherokee and Mattaponi.

110% 'Murican

Only Polish.

Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna!

Dutch, Prussian Baltic with a smattering of Bavarian and Polish.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Wait wait.

Is it Inyourfaceistan's IC stance that all royals should be executed where possible?

Inyursta's*

And no, not exactly. It's just that in most cases when someone should assassinate or execute a royal it does most often qualify them to be seen as a hero and/or freedom-fighter.
(Obvious exceptions being those who would replace them with another monarchy or communists)

[Krjder]

Not really, in a true republic the people on top are just really lucky/hard workers.

In a monarchy they are born into the title which serves as a bloody reminder of the infinite sins of the crown and symbolically they will always remain oppressed so long as their is some asshole out their willing to call himself king and rule with an iron fist, even if "ceremonially"...

In a true Republic. Very few are. And the nature of capitalism means that there will always be an elite, monarchy or not. And how on earth is ruling ceremonially ruling with an iron fist? No one in any western monarchy is oppressed, by the monarchy anyway.

And also leech of the public's taxes.

And in turn pay them back by setting up trusts and charities, sending their children to public military academies and other institutions.

But before my ancestors left that hellhole of a continent and fled to the New World, yes the Spanish were equally as culpable in the oppression of my family...

But my point still stands.
The English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, German, Belgian, Tsars, Ottomans, Saudis, Imperial Japan, Imperial China, North Korea, Incas, Aztecs you name it almost everywhere there were kings or emperors there was indefensible oppression and destruction.

I'm not saying true republics are free of sin by any means, I'm just pointing out that monarchy is one of the oldest evil ideologies there is, pre-dating communism and fascism by a long shot and yet for whatever reason flaming hypocrites act like it can somehow ever in a million years be compatible with the idea of freedom.

There was oppression and destruction, but that was mostly abroad, at least regarding the western powers. I'm not defending most of their actions, but bear this in mind, I created my own monarchy and other nations on NS have, and thus they choose whether or not their monarchy has oppressed. Monarchies have also done a lot of good in the world, many kings and emperors have bravely fought in battle, many have brought about healthy reforms and others have rescued nations and regions from collapse. A monarchy can be compatible with freedom. If like mine, it takes mostly a backseat then it isn't restricting anyone's freedom...

It's their fault they didn't abdicate and abolish the throne

Right... because a sane human being is going to voluntarily surrender his wealth and power....

[New Aeyariss]

Margaret Thatcher used to say that old world was founded on nations, new world on philosophy.

And this is exactly why I can not understand IYF.

For IYF king = Oppressive Spanish or English monarchy oppressing the colonists.

For me king = Sobieski under Vienna or Jagiełło under Grunwald.

Guess it depends on from where we come from...

[Krjder]

Margaret Thatcher used to say that old world was founded on nations, new world on philosophy.

And this is exactly why I can not understand IYF.

For IYF king = Oppressive Spanish or English monarchy oppressing the colonists.

For me king = Sobieski under Vienna or Jagiełło under Grunwald.

Guess it depends on from where we come from...

Exactly, some monarchies are bad some are good. And a lot derives from national propaganda. Where I come from, we don't hear much about our 'frolicings' in Indonesia. The moment I talk to an Indonesian, I get a shit storm about our supposed evilness.

[Aigeantir]

Margaret Thatcher used to say that old world was founded on nations, new world on philosophy.

And this is exactly why I can not understand IYF.

For IYF king = Oppressive Spanish or English monarchy oppressing the colonists.

For me king = Sobieski under Vienna or Jagiełło under Grunwald.

Guess it depends on from where we come from...

I'm trying not to do the "but why?" to Inyursta as well, but I think you have a good point. Just because a monarch exists does not mean they are instantly corrupt, ruling over their people with an iron fist. They may be seen as a saviour to their people during harsh times, or act as a focal point, a figurehead, for the nation. I know Inyursta's stance is based on the concept that their is no upward mobility of wealth or prestige between the masses and the elite, however, my nation does have the potential for such upward (and downward) mobility between classes, as elected officials can earn titles and power, and thereby rise to become a successor to the throne. Each island has 13 Houses, so that's 52 titles, each royal family may (and often) marry other house members, leading to successors to the throne who may not be of "royal blood" originally. The High King is one more step above and is an elected position from the four ruling monarchs. In this way, a middle class person running for local office could conceivably become a monarch, or even the High King/Queen. On the note of downward mobility, a Lord/Lady who has done considerable wrong can be stripped of their title and all the wealth that comes with it (some form of justice against those who might seek to misuse their position )

[Inyourfaceistan]

Not really, in a true republic the people on top are just really lucky/hard workers.

In a monarchy they are born into the title which serves as a bloody reminder of the infinite sins of the crown and symbolically they will always remain oppressed so long as their is some asshole out their willing to call himself king and rule with an iron fist, even if "ceremonially"...

In a true Republic. Very few are. And the nature of capitalism means that there will always be an elite, monarchy or not. And how on earth is ruling ceremonially ruling with an iron fist? No one in any western monarchy is oppressed, by the monarchy anyway.

Ruling cerimonally is like wearing a swastika.
If you wear a swastika around your arm, are you actually rounding people up into camps and gassing them? No.
But are you renouncing the people who wore the swastika for that reason?

Same logic applies to wearing a crown and ruling.
Are you actually ruling with an iron fist? No.
But are you renouncing the institution which spawns such evil?

It's their fault they didn't abdicate and abolish the throne

Right... because a sane human being is going to voluntarily surrender his wealth and power....

Then can you blame true freedom fighters who take up arms against such demons?