Micromanagement: NatSov Rebranded?

[Athfhotla]

The reason for this thread is pretty well-established by the in-character "speech" below, but in case it's not clear the purpose of this thread is to have an in-character discussion unrelated to any specific proposal about the differences between arguments related to micromanagement and arguments from a national sovereigntist perspective. I would ask that everyone remain in character insofar as possible and to use spoilers if going OOC to discuss game mechanics. I wasn't sure if this was the appropriate place to post this, so I checked and Ard gave it the ok.

Prince Padraig, His Royal Majesty's Ambassador to the World Assembly from the United Kingdom of Athfhotla, takes the podium...

Ambassador Kildarno from the Supremely Democratic States of Hirota has suggested that "micromanagement has become the new substitute for National Sovereignty whenever a nation objects to anything." While the Kingdom agrees with national sovereigntists on some matters, we consider ourselves international federalists. Yet we are also fierce opponents of micromanagement. So I was hoping that members of this Assembly who are interested might engage in a discussion with me about the differences between purely national sovereigntist arguments and arguments related to micromanagement.

It might be helpful first to define our terms in a very general way, and I'll try to do that as concisely as possible.

It seems to me that a national sovereigntist is one who objects to the erosion of member nations' sovereignty, who will accept only General Assembly resolutions that are truly international in scope and who generally opposes any intervention in domestic governance. A national sovereigntist would be more likely to support a resolution that deals with international security or global disarmament, for example, than a resolution that addresses social justice or even most elements of sapient rights. A national sovereigntist would be more likely to subscribe to Reasonable Nation Theory and assume that most member nations can be trusted to govern their nations in the interests of their people.

An international federalist, meanwhile, insists that the General Assembly has every right to legislate on matters that a national sovereigntist might consider purely domestic. While an international federalist would also be interested in broadly international matters like international security and global disarmament, he or she would see no reason to stop there. Generally speaking, international federalists are behind the bulk of sapient rights resolutions and virtually all social justice resolutions. International federalists believe that it is the General Assembly's business to protect sapient rights and to ensure social justice and equality, even when addressing such matters means direct intervention in member nations' domestic governance. International federalists are less likely to subscribe to Reasonable Nation Theory.

Where does micromanagement fit into this spectrum? While some national sovereigntists may make arguments related to micromanagement, they probably do so for politically strategic reasons. Given that we've established that national sovereigntists oppose most if not all direct intervention in domestic governance, it follows that national sovereigntists are inclined to see any such intervention as micromanagement. Insofar as those arguing against micromanagement implicitly acknowledge that the General Assembly should be able to take action to directly intervene in domestic governance, they should more appropriately be considered moderate international federalists.

We've established that opponents of micromanagement differ from national sovereigntists in allowing General Assembly intervention in domestic governance. But they also differ from more radical international federalists in that they would prefer the General Assembly to intervene as broadly as possible. Let's take health care as an example. Those who oppose micromanagement would likely agree with other international federalists that the General Assembly should have a role in establishing broad international health care goals and standards, even if meeting those goals and standards requires intervention in domestic governance. But they would oppose getting too deeply involved in how these goals or standards should be implemented by member nations -- for example, by mandating specific licensing requirements, dictating the curricula that member nations use for the training of medical professionals, requiring member nations to adopt a specific type of health care system, etc.

In short, those who argue against micromanagement are international federalists who believe that the General Assembly can and should be involved in setting goals for member nations to meet and standards for them to follow, even related to their domestic governance, but who would prefer insofar as possible to leave the how of achieving those goals and following those standards to individual member nations. Whether this means that those who oppose micromanagement are a distinct group or simply an international federalist subgroup is, I suppose, debatable -- although I believe the latter is the case -- but they are most certainly not, in the Kingdom's view, national sovereigntists.

I would be interested to hear other ambassadors' thoughts on this matter.

[Hirota]

I'll stick with my pithy one-liner for the time being. It's an oversimplification of my opinion, but it'll suffice for now as a starting point for other member states to rip into.

[Athfhotla]

I'll stick with my pithy one-liner for the time being. It's an oversimplification of my opinion, but it'll suffice for now as a starting point for other member states to rip into.

I hope they won't. I thought there was some merit to what you were saying, which is why I wanted to start a discussion on the topic so that everyone can discuss how micromanagement opponents (dear Lord, we need an abbreviation for that. NoMicros?) might be similar to and differ from IntFeds and NatSovs.

Then again, they do call this a snake pit for a reason -- so I guess it's not out of the question that your pithy one-liner will be ripped into.

[Bears Armed]

Actually quite a few of the nations whose goverrnments consider themselves to be NatSovs but that do hold membership in the WA (and/or that held membership in its predecessor) anyway have historically been willing to accept some international legislation on the subject of the most fundamental sapient rights, the convention against genocide and the ban on slavery for example, it's just that they've defined 'fundamental' a lot more restrictively than the IntFeds have tended to do...

[Athfhotla]

Actually quite a few of the nations whose goverrnments consider themselves to be NatSovs but that do hold membership in the WA (and/or that held membership in its predecessor) anyway have historically been willing to accept some international legislation on the subject of the most fundamental sapient rights, the convention against genocide and the ban on slavery for example, it's just that they've defined 'fundamental' a lot more restrictively than the IntFeds have tended to do...

Thank you for pointing that out, Ambassador SouthWoods. I made every effort to use words like "most," "many," "some," etc. in my earlier floor speech in an effort to avoid over-generalizing. Some generalization is necessary for the sake of brevity, though, as I suspect that if someone really wanted to take the time they could write books on the complexities of national sovereigntism and international federalism.

In some cases I have over-generalized or failed to mention important issues. I stayed away from the whole area of trade because some NatSovs favor free trade while others favor protectionism while still others favor something of a blend. Ditto environmental policy. In fact, some NatSovs are more IntFed on trade than many IntFeds are, as many of the latter tend toward protectionism (which should in my view be a more properly NatSov position). The issues I raised were mostly used as illustrative examples and shouldn't be taken as be-all, end-all definitions of what it means to be NatSov or IntFed. I think such a definition is probably above my pay grade.

I think the point I was trying to make in a very long-winded and overly general way was simply this: Generally speaking, NatSovs want the GA kept out of domestic governance except in very limited circumstances while IntFeds favor a more expanded role for the GA in domestic governance. As do NoMicros, but they want that role to be broader and leave individual nations more latitude in the implementation of broad policy goals and standards.

[Unibot II]

Actually quite a few of the nations whose goverrnments consider themselves to be NatSovs but that do hold membership in the WA (and/or that held membership in its predecessor) anyway have historically been willing to accept some international legislation on the subject of the most fundamental sapient rights, the convention against genocide and the ban on slavery for example, it's just that they've defined 'fundamental' a lot more restrictively than the IntFeds have tended to do...

Thank you for pointing that out, Ambassador SouthWoods. I made every effort to use words like "most," "many," "some," etc. in my earlier floor speech in an effort to avoid over-generalizing. Some generalization is necessary for the sake of brevity, though, as I suspect that if someone really wanted to take the time they could write books on the complexities of national sovereigntism and international federalism.

In some cases I have over-generalized or failed to mention important issues. I stayed away from the whole area of trade because some NatSovs favor free trade while others favor protectionism while still others favor something of a blend. Ditto environmental policy. In fact, some NatSovs are more IntFed on trade than many IntFeds are, as many of the latter tend toward protectionism (which should in my view be a more properly NatSov position). The issues I raised were mostly used as illustrative examples and shouldn't be taken as be-all, end-all definitions of what it means to be NatSov or IntFed. I think such a definition is probably above my pay grade.

I think the point I was trying to make in a very long-winded and overly general way was simply this: Generally speaking, NatSovs want the GA kept out of domestic governance except in very limited circumstances while IntFeds favor a more expanded role for the GA in domestic governance. As do NoMicros, but they want that role to be broader and leave individual nations more latitude in the implementation of broad policy goals and standards.

That's because depending on the person, NatSov philosophy is simply a pretense for fierce neoliberalism.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That's because depending on the person, NatSov philosophy is simply a pretense for fierce neoliberalism.

Hey, hey now. I support neoliberal trade policy! IntFed and neoliberalism aren't incompatible.

A lot of the disagreement comes from differing opinions on whether or not ESCRs are actual rights that should be enforced internationally.

[Knootoss]

Hello, person whose nations' flag is suspiciously similar to that of United Celts.

Your argument sucks. Micromanagement is just that. Trying to prop up bad legislation by trying to accuse its opponents of some kind of political conspiracy isn't going to work. Your friends from Glen-Rhodes and Unibot have been trying for ages already, to little effect.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Alqania]

"Must we categorise everything as NatSov or IntFed?" Princess Christine protested. "The Queendom has refused to position itself in either of those camps, firstly because we do not buy either of those philosophies per se and secondly because we find it completely unnecessary to do so. And no, that does not mean we define ourselves as centrist. We would perhaps declare an opposition to micromanagement however, as that seems to be a position we have actually taken on a number of proposals.

But if opposition to micromanagement is going to be called 'substitute NatSov' or 'moderate IntFed', then count us out. We will still oppose micromanagement as much and little as before of course, but we have no interest in being categorised as a watered-down version of some principle we do not ascribe to. Our real position is of course, should it have eluded anyone, that we do not base our position on proposals by slavishly following any principle, as principles are not what matters the most to us."

[Knootoss]

Hear hear. If opposition to badly written, needlessly intrusive legislation is going to be categorised as a political position, what does that say about the ambassadors who are, apparently, FOR micromanagement?

[Embolalia]

That's because depending on the person, NatSov philosophy is simply a pretense for fierce neoliberalism.

I see your point, but I don't think it was phrased well.

Pretense implies some dishonesty. I don't think that's the case here. For some NatSovers, neoliberalism is the reason they are NatSovers. That is to say, people who hold some opinion on the way nations should be run, be it neoliberalism or something else, may see NatSov as appealing because, quite simply, they want to be able to run their nation in that way. Or rather, they believe it is a nation's right to have a neoliberal economic philosophy.

NatSov, in its purest form, is not about "I don't want this policy". It is often used as such, but that's not what's at the heart of it. A telltale sign of a NatSov argument is when one argues that, even if one holds a different opinion on the subject, one would not think it appropriate to require anyone else to conform to it. One can even agree with the position of a proposal, but not agree that it should be required. For example, I personally agree that properly regulated prostitution should be legal. I don't agree that everyone should be required to legalize it.



Getting back to the main thrust of the discussion, NatSov does preclude micromanagement. This is obvious; wanting to maintain your sovereignty means not wanting small details dictated to you. However, IntFed does not require micromanagement. For example, Against Conflict Minerals is a fairly IntFed resolution. There's also very little micromanagement. International Federalism is not micromanagement. Micromanagement is not International Federalism. Micromanagement is simply the symptom of an inability to write effective legislation.

[Bears Armed]

That's because depending on the person, NatSov philosophy is simply a pretense for fierce neoliberalism.

Apart from any other arguments against that gross exaggeration _

Gruenberg? The Eternal Kawaii?!? Both of them definitely run by NatSov regimes, and active in the NSUN/WA as such from time to time, but calling either of them any sort of "liberal" is just ridiculous!



And in the Bears' case, our NatSov position isn't based on any ideological attachement to 'Neo-Liberalism' ("whatever that is" says Artorrios...) neither, it's because innate psychological differences from humanity mean that Bears in general tend to be less interested in -- to use the term in its broadest sense -- "collectivist" solutions to policy problems than is the case for Humans. In fact, as Artorrios and Borin have already pointed out during various debates, this nation's Constitution doesn't even give the national government any authority over quite a few of the topics that IntFeds want to subject to international legislation...

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I don't think "liberal" and "neoliberal" are the same thing*. Gruenberg was hardly a liberal regime, but fairly neoliberal when it came to Free Trade in the UN.

*(Just as "conservative" and "neoconservative" are not the same thing, but that's another matter altogether.)

[Unibot II]

I don't think "liberal" and "neoliberal" are the same thing*. Gruenberg was hardly a liberal regime, but fairly neoliberal when it came to Free Trade in the UN.

*(Just as "conservative" and "neoconservative" are not the same thing, but that's another matter altogether.)

Correct, but I would also say that some NatSovers are simply just Conservatives disillusioned with the fairly liberal majority in the World Assembly too. I'm skeptical about how many delegations actually hold the pure and honest doctrine of National Sovereignty or if they're just International Federalists with an ideology different from the majority of International Federalists.

For a crash-course on why a lot of conservatives are called by "neoliberals" by me and other Political Science students: a century ago or more, the people who would we would have called liberals are essentially the people who we call conservatives now hence "neo"-"liberal"-- fiercely concerned with the freedom of the market, the protection of property and the reduction of protectionism.

A rare exception to Conservatives being NatSovers would be Christian Democrats, who I think I would peg as a very Conservative International Federalist -- but frankly I think his position bores out of an inclination to fruitlessly want to impose his Christian values on others... when like-minded individuals have already figured out it's unlikely to be successful.

[Embolalia]

I don't think "liberal" and "neoliberal" are the same thing*. Gruenberg was hardly a liberal regime, but fairly neoliberal when it came to Free Trade in the UN.

*(Just as "conservative" and "neoconservative" are not the same thing, but that's another matter altogether.)

Correct, but I would also say that some NatSovers are simply just Conservatives disillusioned with the fairly liberal majority in the World Assembly too. I'm skeptical about how many delegations actually hold the pure and honest doctrine of National Sovereignty or if they're just International Federalists with an ideology different from the majority of International Federalists.

For a crash-course on why a lot of conservatives are called by "neoliberals" by me and other Political Science students: a century ago or more, the people who would we would have called liberals are essentially the people who we call conservatives now hence "neo"-"liberal"-- fiercely concerned with the freedom of the market, the protection of property and the reduction of protectionism.

A rare exception to Conservatives being NatSovers would be Christian Democrats, who I think I would peg as a very Conservative International Federalist -- but frankly I think his position bores out of an inclination to fruitlessly want to impose his Christian values on others... when like-minded individuals have already figured out it's unlikely to be successful.

I would disagree. "Some NatSovers" aren't disillusioned conservatives. Some people who make national sovereignty claims are disillusioned conservatives. There is a difference between someone who claims lowercase-n lowercase-s national sovereignty and someone who is a capital-N capital-S National Sovereigntist. Like I said before, a capital NatSover (most of the "big names" in NatSov are among them. Knoot would be the first example to come to mind.) does not object to what a policy is. A capital NatSover objects to there being a policy.
Conservative IntFeds who claim to be NatSov because it suits them are as much a stain on our "party" as micromanagers are on IntFeds.

[Unibot II]

Correct, but I would also say that some NatSovers are simply just Conservatives disillusioned with the fairly liberal majority in the World Assembly too. I'm skeptical about how many delegations actually hold the pure and honest doctrine of National Sovereignty or if they're just International Federalists with an ideology different from the majority of International Federalists.

For a crash-course on why a lot of conservatives are called by "neoliberals" by me and other Political Science students: a century ago or more, the people who would we would have called liberals are essentially the people who we call conservatives now hence "neo"-"liberal"-- fiercely concerned with the freedom of the market, the protection of property and the reduction of protectionism.

A rare exception to Conservatives being NatSovers would be Christian Democrats, who I think I would peg as a very Conservative International Federalist -- but frankly I think his position bores out of an inclination to fruitlessly want to impose his Christian values on others... when like-minded individuals have already figured out it's unlikely to be successful.

I would disagree. "Some NatSovers" aren't disillusioned conservatives. Some people who make national sovereignty claims are disillusioned conservatives. There is a difference between someone who claims lowercase-n lowercase-s national sovereignty and someone who is a capital-N capital-S National Sovereigntist. Like I said before, a capital NatSover (most of the "big names" in NatSov are among them. Knoot would be the first example to come to mind.) does not object to what a policy is. A capital NatSover objects to there being a policy.
Conservative IntFeds who claim to be NatSov because it suits them are as much a stain on our "party" as micromanagers are on IntFeds.

I would argue that Knoot is not a NatSover what so ever... but very much an International Federalist with a strong neoliberal stance -- International Federalism needed a counterpart, so National Sovereignty was fabricated, but the doctrine itself is held by almost no delegation in reality and is in practice employed so inconsistently that I think declaring oneself a Sovereigntist is more of a rhetoric trick or a genuine misunderstanding of how riddled with holes is one's philosophy.

[Mallorea and Riva]

national sovereignty- We don't want your policy inflicting on our nation, for various cultural, political, or economic reasons.
National Sovereigntist- We don't want anyone's policies to be inflicted on anyone, on the basis that the state has the right to legislate on certain types of issues as opposed to the WA.

It really isn't that difficult. Any attempt to claim that the position does not exist is either a statement born of ignorance or a deliberate attempt to misconstrue the position for political gain.

[Alqania]

"Liberals, neoliberals, conservatives, neoconservatives - to an Alqanian it is all just various nuances of 'right-wing' with obscure differences", Princess Christine argued. "These labels are very culturally biased and rather confusing when used in a forum as international and diverse as the Assembly. And even if they were not, I am not sure why they would be relevant to this discussion."

[Christian Democrats]

THREE MAIN GROUPS IN THE MODERN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

National Sovereigntists: Accept legislation on only a limited number of issues, including international relations and the most fundamental human rights; in almost all areas, member states have complete discretion; view the World Assembly as a loose confederation.

International Federalists: Promote legislation in many areas of human rights and are willing to set up the basic structures of systems to ensure that those rights are respected; allow member states a moderate to great amount of flexibility within general guidelines; view the World Assembly as a strong confederation or a federation.

World Unitarians: Promote extremely detailed legislation that sets specific limits on what member states can and cannot do and establish large, complex bureaucracies to carry out their programs; often impose a single view of an issue on all member states; view the World Assembly as a unitary state in which member states are merely administrative units.

(I consider myself an international federalist.)

[Alqania]

World Unitarians: Promote extremely detailed legislation that sets specific limits on what member states can and cannot do and establish large, complex bureaucracies to carry out their programs; often impose a single view of an issue on all member states; view the World Assembly as a unitary state in which member states are merely administrative units.

"When has any member state ever announced a position as World Unitarian?" Christine demanded.

[Embolalia]

World Unitarians: Promote extremely detailed legislation that sets specific limits on what member states can and cannot do and establish large, complex bureaucracies to carry out their programs; often impose a single view of an issue on all member states; view the World Assembly as a unitary state in which member states are merely administrative units.

"When has any member state ever announced a position as World Unitarian?" Christine demanded.

Ooh! Ooh! Can I have a go at the paranoid conspiracy theory thing?

M'colleague is inventing a fictitious group further from the middle than himself, so that he can portray himself as being in the ideological center, with the two other parties (one real, the other fake) being apparently equidistant from that fake center. Furthermore, he makes the fictitious party patently absurd, which portrays his real opponents as equally absurd. It's a wonderful rhetorical trick to curry favor for his positions.


How'd I do?

[Mallorea and Riva]

World Unitarians: Promote extremely detailed legislation that sets specific limits on what member states can and cannot do and establish large, complex bureaucracies to carry out their programs; often impose a single view of an issue on all member states; view the World Assembly as a unitary state in which member states are merely administrative units.

"When has any member state ever announced a position as World Unitarian?" Christine demanded.

The International Federalist block actually contains this grouping. It is not in fact a separate group.

[Unibot II]

National Sovereigntist- We don't want anyone's policies to be inflicted on anyone, on the basis that the state has the right to legislate on certain types of issues as opposed to the WA.

Don't I have a right to give up certain parts of my nation's sovereignty? Who are you to impose those values on my nation?

@Embo: Bingo.

[Mallorea and Riva]

National Sovereigntist- We don't want anyone's policies to be inflicted on anyone, on the basis that the state has the right to legislate on certain types of issues as opposed to the WA.

Don't I have a right to give up certain parts of my nation's sovereignty? Who are you to impose those values on my nation?

@Embo: Bingo.

You have a right to give up whatever you wish, however don't expect my nation to do the same simply because you wish to do so.

[Sovreignry]

World Unitarians: Promote extremely detailed legislation that sets specific limits on what member states can and cannot do and establish large, complex bureaucracies to carry out their programs; often impose a single view of an issue on all member states; view the World Assembly as a unitary state in which member states are merely administrative units.

"When has any member state ever announced a position as World Unitarian?" Christine demanded.

I believe Great Zavi/Azarath has actually professed a view similar to it if I'm not mistaken. Their arguments in the prostitution debates seem to bear this out.