[Discussion] A New Paradigm for the 2020s

[Hulldom]

It's been now over a decade (by about six months) since the now ancient "Will the real International Federalist please stand up?" discussion thread was originally posted by Knootoss. In that time, figures like him have faded to the background, relatively speaking, in the World Assembly to be replaced by newer players with new ideals, new goals, and new missions.

Similar to some older player's laments about the death, or at the least decline, in the detailed role-play that once dominated the General Assembly in particular, there's been, at least in my experience, a renewed interest in defining what attitudes towards international legislation are relevant some 10 years after Knootoss' original article was written.

I think it's worth noting that while Knootoss' original points about International Federalism and National Sovereignty have not exactly lost their pride of place, especially when it comes to authors like myself, they've lost the descriptive, or even prescriptive, force that they might have in an era where these two camps were more reflexively the only definite categories. This is not to say, however, that I'm interested in a labelling effort merely as an outlier. (As Banana pointed out, I'm not the strongest international federalist out there to be sure.) It is though an effort for this body to clarify the modern "state of the game" ideologically and provide a paradigm for understanding authorship in 2021, given that the General Assembly is quite different than it was in 2011.

I have no real suggestions to make on this front. I would rather it be an organic discussion that we as a community an reach consensus-based conclusions on, and of course, I think that some introspection from the community on the topic of the paradigms authors can fall into is definitely in order.

[Imperium Anglorum]

viewtopic.php?p=37694205&sid=673aed3b44381afb731ec16fd1d0e416#p37694205.

[Lord Dominator]

The future is the abolition of the nation in favor of gnome committees

[Hulldom]

The future is the abolition of the nation in favor of gnome committees

One can dream!

I kid (sorta), but I think it's at least worth noting in this conversation that there's an army of at least one who would be perfectly happy to see the extension of international authority beyond its traditional/realistic (in the sense of real life) bounds.

[Lord Dominator]

The future is the abolition of the nation in favor of gnome committees

One can dream!

Who said anything about dreaming?

Edit: That is, I’m not joking - I am perfectly willing to regulate anything and everything, up to taking over national governments themselves

[Wallenburg]

The future is the abolition of the nation in favor of gnome committees

Unquestionably, given the sustained presence of orcish member states, their populations would be better off under the exclusive rule of a world government.

[Bananaistan]

People want to write proposals about stuff. It was the same ten years ago.

[Haganham]

The future is the abolition of the nation in favor of gnome committees

Unquestionably, given the sustained presence of orcish member states, their populations would be better off under the exclusive rule of a world government.

The threat to the gnomes really comes from the kobalds, rather then the orcs.

[Sandaoguo]

Just the $0.02 of a prominent IntFed proponent of that era...

That essay by Knootoss gets linked to a lot in the IntFed/NatSov debate, but for all he wrote about things like European Union-style subsidiarity, NatSov players voted very differently. That thread he started was far more about trying to delegitimize IntFed players than anything else.

He was mostly on his own among NatSov players when he said the WA had legitimate interest in legislating on things that requires international cooperation. The bigger and more influential NatSov players were the ones writing blockers left and right about everything. He'd roll over in his grave with my saying this, but Knootoss was a closet IntFed. The way he described NatSov in that thread was way closer to what the IntFed players at the time (myself among them) were doing and how we understood International Federalism, than the weird strawman IntFed he tried to construct there.

[Bears Armed]

He was mostly on his own among NatSov players when he said the WA had legitimate interest in legislating on things that requires international cooperation.

I think that you're exaggerating slightly there... hopefully not in a deliberate attempt to "delegitimize" NatSov players.
I was active in NatSov discussion circles myself including a couple of offsite forums, and know for sure that that viewpoint was fairly common among those NatSovs who actually participated in the GA forum & its predecessors... who included the authors of a number of resolutions on topics falling within that limit.

[Sandaoguo]

He was mostly on his own among NatSov players when he said the WA had legitimate interest in legislating on things that requires international cooperation.

I think that you're exaggerating slightly there... hopefully not in a deliberate attempt to "delegitimize" NatSov players.
I was active in NatSov discussion circles myself including a couple of offsite forums, and know for sure that that viewpoint was fairly common among those NatSovs who actually participated in the GA forum & its predecessors... who included the authors of a number of resolutions on topics falling within that limit.

Only exaggerating a little. But I honestly don’t and never did consider you a hardcore NatSov player, or really particularly influential when it came to NatSov stuff compared to more prolific ideological players. (No offense intended!) For example, you were all about environmental regulations, iirc. Then there were players like Krioval who attempted to ban the WA from writing economic resolutions altogether. Or the wonderful saga of NatSovers sinking any war-related resolution that sought to ban chemical or bio weapons.

NatSovers were a wildly inconsistent and sometimes hypocritical bunch, when it came to what resolutions they wrote and opposed. You had NatSovers wanting to enforce democratic freedoms and rights like assembly or petition. They wrote a bunch of resolutions on trial rights, criminal law, etc. Things that have nothing to do with international cooperation, let alone “international” anything. Then they’d oppose attempts to write the Geneva Conventions into a WA resolution, or a landmine treaty, or any number of truly international things. Then they’d turn around and try forcing every WA member into a free trade economic union.

[Bears Armed]

I think that you're exaggerating slightly there... hopefully not in a deliberate attempt to "delegitimize" NatSov players.
I was active in NatSov discussion circles myself including a couple of offsite forums, and know for sure that that viewpoint was fairly common among those NatSovs who actually participated in the GA forum & its predecessors... who included the authors of a number of resolutions on topics falling within that limit.

Only exaggerating a little. But I honestly don’t and never did consider you a hardcore NatSov player,

To me "hardccore NatSov player" meant people like those running Gatesville, who voted against everything except -- perhaps -- repeals & occasionally obvious blockers, rather than those who actually got involved in the drafting & debating forums: I regarded & still regard myself to be a "moderate NatSov".

or really particularly influential when it came to NatSov stuff compared to more prolific ideological players. (No offense intended!) For example, you were all about environmental regulations, irrc.

Environemntal regulations about matters that crossed international boundaries, mainly: 'Sensible Limits on Hunting', which didn't do so as much, was partly to block anything stricter & more intrusive (such as a total ban on hunting altogether) that any of this body's "fluffier" members might come up with.

Then there were players like Krioval who attempted to ban the WA from writing economic resolutions altogether. Or the wonderful saga of NatSovers sinking any war-related resolution that sought to ban chemical or bio weapons.

One of the forums with which I was involved, whose members were mostly moderate-ish NatSovs (including quite a few from Antarctic Oasis), was [UN-]DEFCON: This actually produced a number of "war-related" proposals, including the NS-UN's second ban on bio-weapons... which was still in force when the UN was replaced by the WA.

NatSovers were a wildly inconsistent and sometimes hypocritical bunch, when it came to what resolutions they wrote and opposed. You had NatSovers wanting to enforce democratic freedoms and rights like assembly or petition. They wrote a bunch of resolutions on trial rights, criminal law, etc. Things that have nothing to do with international cooperation, let alone “international” anything. Then they’d oppose attempts to write the Geneva Conventions into a WA resolution, or a landmine treaty, or any number of truly international things. Then they’d turn around and try forcing every WA member into a free trade economic union.

Not that Int-Fedders were automatically more unified, of course: In both cases there were ranges from extreme through moderate to mildly, and in both cases there were both economic & 'social' Left/Right splits (which might actually have hit the IntFeds worse than it did the NatSovs, simply because their wider range of potential subjects for legislation gave more scope for disagreement along those lines...).
About your accusation of' hypocrisy', many of the "moderate NatSovs" said "international matters and 'fundamental' rights", but there was no unified agreement about which rights are 'fundamental'. For me, that basically meant rights whose absence posed a direct & unreasonable threat to people's lives, and to their abilities to move out of their current nations in search of ones whose own laws they considered preferable, and this did include at least some aspects of criminal law. Flibblites added 'workers' rights' to his list, Mousie (whose claim to be NatSov was disputed by some of the others) added some health-related matters (including abortion), and so on.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is the list of GA resolutions for which I am either author or co-author, with explanations for why I consider each of those to be justified under my criteria _

GA Resolution Author, as Bears Armed Mission

#87: ‘Meteorological Cooperation’. (Co-author = St Edmund.)
International cooperation on a topic that benefits strongly from this sharing of information clearly falls within 'international matters'.

#168: ‘Law of the Seas’. (Co-author = Cobdenia.)
Borders between nations are clearly within 'international matters'.

# 224: ‘Promotion of Bee-keeping’.
International trade (operative clause 2) falls within international matters: The other details (operative cause 1) aren't mandatory.

#267: 'Sensible Limits on Hunting'. (Co-author = Hirota.)
There's some international scope, because of species often being not limited to single nations, and the clause about international trade in relevant animal products is clearly an international matter: Otherwise, as I said above, it is meant to block any alternative international legislation that might be more intrusive on national sovereignty.

#295: 'Prevention of Wildfires'.
As I explained in its preamble, wildfires -- and the large clouds of smoke that these may produce -- do not stop neatly at nations' borders: Therefore, an international matter.

#299: 'Legal Competence'.
Fundamental rights, and blocker against more intrusive legislation that would try to set one-size-fits-all age thresholds for things.

#301: 'Ban on Leaded Fuel'.
As explained in its preamble, the effects of the pollution from that fuel do not stop neatly at nations' borders: Therefore, an international matter.

#421: 'Ozone Layer Protection'.
The problem, if not checked, would harm all nations on the same planet: Therefore, an international matter.

#429: #'Traditional Medicine'.
Okay, this one is probably the iffiest: There's a bit of environmentalism (justifiable by some species not being limited to single nations), there's some fundamental rights (protect people's lives against ineffective or even harmful 'medicines')... but largely, I admit, It was my Ursines IC trying to discourage -- without intruding too severely on national sovereignty -- the "medicinal" use of bear bile.

Co-Author, as Bears Armed Mission

#561: 'Protection of Apostates. (Author = Daarwyrth)
Fundamental rights.

Co-Author, as Bears Armed

#199: ‘Sustainable Fishing Act’. (Author = Cowardly Pacifists.)
Stocks of fish & other aquatic animals often have ranges extending across international borders: Therefore, an international matter.
Also, as with #267, a blocker against alternative legislation that might be more intrusive on nations' sovereignty.

#403: 'Trade of Endangered Organisms'. (Author = Ransium.)
International trade: Therefore, an international matter.

Additional Notes

St Edmund, listed above as co-author of GA Res.#87 'Meteorological Cooperation, is actually another one of my own nations: It had pushed through an earlier version of that resolution, with the same title, back in the days of the NS-UN. It was also the author of GA Res.#20 'Suppress International Piracy', although that legislation was "proposed" to the GA by the nation of Mavenu -- which belongs to a different player -- instead, and is formally credited as the author in the area at that resolution's foot that more normally would be used for listing co-authors.
Presumably I don't need to explain why 'Suppress International Piracy' is an international matter?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Oh, and don't forget that there was a third -- albeit rather smaller -- school of thought, too: The 'IndSov-ers' ('Individual Sovereigntists'), exemplified at that time by Hirota, sought to promote the rights of individuals against excessive interference by either national governments or the international bodies...

[Gruenberg]

It's been now over a decade (by about six months) since the now ancient "Will the real International Federalist please stand up?" discussion thread was originally posted by Knootoss. In that time, figures like him have faded to the background, relatively speaking, in the World Assembly to be replaced by newer players with new ideals, new goals, and new missions.

What do you mean by "figures like him"? Knoot was not particularly representative of either the UN/WA player base in general or sovereigntist players in particular.

I think it's worth noting that while Knootoss' original points about International Federalism and National Sovereignty have not exactly lost their pride of place

They never had any pride of place. He was mostly wrong.

an era where these two camps were more reflexively the only definite categories

Such an era never existed.

Knoot's essay was basically worthless and trying to recreate it for the "current age" would be an equally worthless endeavour.

[Separatist Peoples]

Every time I read the thread, my brain reads Paradigm as Para Dig em. That is the most helpful take I've gotten from revisiting the dichotomy of intfed and natsov.

[Hulldom]

Every time I read the thread, my brain reads Paradigm as Para Dig em. That is the most helpful take I've gotten from revisiting the dichotomy of intfed and natsov.

I was hoping it would evolve beyond that. Perhaps this weekend I can offer a few new thoughts.