NationStates Jolt Archive

This sounds less menacing than "The Right to Revolution", but I submitted it as a proposal:

Please approve it:

Declaration of Political Right
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Global Market
Description: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity, which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Approvals: 1 (Goobergunchia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 125 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Nov 30 2003

The Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia has approved this proposal. [Withdraw Approval]

Looks pretty good, though based on it's interpretation it could effect a wide variety of different changes, I am apethitic about this purposal right now.

We have approved it.

Looks pretty good, though based on it's interpretation it could effect a wide variety of different changes, I am apethitic about this purposal right now.

Heh, the US uses it and we're doing fine.

Looks pretty good, though based on it's interpretation it could effect a wide variety of different changes, I am apethitic about this purposal right now.

Heh, the US uses it and we're doing fine.

The US does not use this.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are different things.

That said, the Constitution in its current form represents to a large degree what the Declaration of Independence said.

Looks pretty good, though based on it's interpretation it could effect a wide variety of different changes, I am apethitic about this purposal right now.

Heh, the US uses it and we're doing fine.

The US does not use this.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are different things.

The Constitution is rooted in the higher law of the Declaration.

Looks pretty good, though based on it's interpretation it could effect a wide variety of different changes, I am apethitic about this purposal right now.

Heh, the US uses it and we're doing fine.

The US does not use this.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are different things.

The Constitution is rooted in the higher law of the Declaration.

I basically agree - see my edit.

All of which begs the question - how often does revolution benefit the people it is undertaken on behalf of?

Examples in point - the Russian Revolution. It got the Russians out of WW1 early, which was good, and got rid of some pretty ineffective except for when it was being brutal government, which was also good. But it also led to a protracted civil conflict, Leninism, which was well-meaning and ineffective, and Stalinism, which was just poisonous, and the later, vaguer creeds. And more pain followed from the end of Communism in 1989 and the institution of a pretty unsuccessful (thus far) example of Capitalist Democracy in the bulk of Russia, and mostly dictatorships in the rest of the old Soviet Union (with a few small exceptions).

Indian Independence - not many people in India today would regret the departure of the Brits (view records of the Amritsar massacre, as a case in point of us at our worst), but without Independence happening how it did, there would never have been the agonies of Partition, or the wars with Pakistan, or the ongoing dispute over Kashmir.

The end of Apartheid in South Africa - a victory for democracy and civil rights, certainly. But neither Mandela or Mbeki seem to have been all that competent as administrators - crime has risen, and public and economic health have fallen.

The French Revolution - blood in the streets, Robespierre, paving the way for Napoleon and massively destructive wars across Europe; a bit of a mess, really, but it did pave the way for eventual democracy.

The English Civil War - an incompetent and arrogant King replaced by a brutal and arrogant presbytarian type for five years (who banned Christmas), followed very briefly by his highly incompetent son and then by a relatively competent king (and Charles II proved merciful to all but the ringleaders of the opposition - however, he had those that signed the execution order for his father executed in their turn, including Cromwell, whose two year dead body was exhumed, and the head stuck on a spike outside his palace gates until the end of his reign).

The American War of Independence and the American Civil War - I'd better not comment out of general ignorance ;-)

I've deliberately played devil's advocate here (and in doing so been highly OOC for me or for my nation, which is a nice mess), although without going so far as to make the arguments meaningless. The question stands, however - what price freedom, and how are we to trust those who promise it to us?

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Governments have to be VERY illegitimate to justify being overthrown. The question now is who gets to define "light and transient". The answer to this is usually the people themselves.

All of which begs the question - how often does revolution benefit the people it is undertaken on behalf of?

Examples in point - the Russian Revolution. It got the Russians out of WW1 early, which was good, and got rid of some pretty ineffective except for when it was being brutal government, which was also good. But it also led to a protracted civil conflict, Leninism, which was well-meaning and ineffective, and Stalinism, which was just poisonous, and the later, vaguer creeds. And more pain followed from the end of Communism in 1989 and the institution of a pretty unsuccessful (thus far) example of Capitalist Democracy in the bulk of Russia, and mostly dictatorships in the rest of the old Soviet Union (with a few small exceptions).

Indian Independence - not many people in India today would regret the departure of the Brits (view records of the Amritsar massacre, as a case in point of us at our worst), but without Independence happening how it did, there would never have been the agonies of Partition, or the wars with Pakistan, or the ongoing dispute over Kashmir.

The end of Apartheid in South Africa - a victory for democracy and civil rights, certainly. But neither Mandela or Mbeki seem to have been all that competent as administrators - crime has risen, and public and economic health have fallen.

The French Revolution - blood in the streets, Robespierre, paving the way for Napoleon and massively destructive wars across Europe; a bit of a mess, really, but it did pave the way for eventual democracy.

The English Civil War - an incompetent and arrogant King replaced by a brutal and arrogant presbytarian type for five years (who banned Christmas), followed very briefly by his highly incompetent son and then by a relatively competent king (and Charles II proved merciful to all but the ringleaders of the opposition - however, he had those that signed the execution order for his father executed in their turn, including Cromwell, whose two year dead body was exhumed, and the head stuck on a spike outside his palace gates until the end of his reign).

The American War of Independence and the American Civil War - I'd better not comment out of general ignorance ;-)

I've deliberately played devil's advocate here (and in doing so been highly OOC for me or for my nation, which is a nice mess), although without going so far as to make the arguments meaningless. The question stands, however - what price freedom, and how are we to trust those who promise it to us?

Revolutions are often hijacked.

One example: the Russian Revolution.

Whatever your personal opinion on communism/socialism, it is historical fact that democracy was an essential part of the teachings of Karl Marx and many of the leaders of the Russian Revolution. Lenin, Trostsky, Stalin, and a number of other oppurtunists siezed power and denied this right to the people. That is where the revolution went wrong - it was hijacked.

That's a good point.

"All revolutions devour their own children."
--Ernst Rohm

All, except one... ours. This is because in our revolution, we had two roughly equally powerful factions, the Federalists and Republicans, vying for power. Neither of the two became too powerful, and we also wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights early. Except for the Alien and Sedition Acts, we maintained our liberty throughout our early years. We tolerated both conservative and radical viewpoints. And this is how the Republic was saved.

Hmm.

And all because one bunch of colonists plus the French beat the other bunch of colonists plus the English. Confusing, n'est-ce pas?

Oh, I do love a devil's advocate position - it's so win-win. If I win the debate, it's obviously because I am an astounding debator, and if I lose, the side I'm actually on won. The only way this could come out badly is if some real b#####d comes out on the devil's side and wins the debate for "me". If so, I shall attempt to sabotage them from behind their own lines. So don't even try it, people.

Hmm.

And all because one bunch of colonists plus the French beat the other bunch of colonists plus the English. Confusing, n'est-ce pas?

Oh, I do love a devil's advocate position - it's so win-win. If I win the debate, it's obviously because I am an astounding debator, and if I lose, the side I'm actually on won. The only way this could come out badly is if some real b#####d comes out on the devil's side and wins the debate for "me". If so, I shall attempt to sabotage them from behind their own lines. So don't even try it, people.

:lol:

Please approve this delegates!

This sounds less menacing than "The Right to Revolution", but I submitted it as a proposal:

Please approve it:

Declaration of Political Right
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Global Market
Description: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity, which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


What will it do to our economy???

This won't turn us into laisse faire capitalist nations, will it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I personally prefer rule by me over democracy, will you include a clause that gives absolute rule to me?

This sounds less menacing than "The Right to Revolution", but I submitted it as a proposal:

Please approve it:

Declaration of Political Right
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Global Market
Description: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity, which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


What will it do to our economy???

Uh... absolutely nothing?

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Creator. The same Creator which your proposal refers to as endowing men and women with inalienable rights also created princes, and conferred upon them the inalienable and absolute right to rule. Governors are endowed with powers and rights and responsibilities not by the governed, but by the Creator which the two of them have in common.

The fact that this proposal is virtually verbatim a facsimilie of a certain flimsy piece of paper which rebels have in the past claimed to justify rebellion against their rightful prince (who ruled by the right of the same Creator which the very same flimsy piece of paper acknowledges as endowing men with rights), I submit that you may as well have kept the title "The Right to Revolution".

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

You might want to check your clock, it's a couple centuries slow.

the real problem with creating new governments is that usually the people leading the revolution want to stay in power after the revolution. Its vrey hard to have a balanced government with the rules tilted for a certain party.

I am not the one who is copying and pasting centuries old documents into the proposal window.

The fact remains that government does not require the mandate of the governed. If, as is the case in Pantocratoria, the government's authority, as embodied in the physical person of the Emperor, deigns to devolve the right to elect a body to which it devolves the exercise its authority (in Pantocratoria's case, the Imperial Parliament), then that body requires the mandate of the people. But the government's authority receives its mandate from the same source as men and women receive these inalienable rights of yours.

Let us examine the case of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy, and a monarchy. The monarch is the sovereign, the physical embodiment of the government's authority. Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II requires no mandate from her subjects. The parliament's authority comes from the crown, although its composition comes from the people.

And yet, this model is fundamentally contradicted by your proposal. Your proposal condescends to allow such a model of government to continue, but maintains, essentially, that all authority comes from the governed.

Rubbish.

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


I would add that they are in the confines of society or you will get lots of problems later on, with people trying to persuade you that shooting their brother was in the interest of liberty.

This sounds less menacing than "The Right to Revolution", but I submitted it as a proposal:

Please approve it:

Declaration of Political Right
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Global Market
Description: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity, which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


What will it do to our economy???

Uh... absolutely nothing?

I don't know. If the people decide to get rid of their government, it will certainly affect the royal exchequer.

...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I would add that they are in the confines of society or you will get lots of problems later on, with people trying to persuade you that shooting their brother was in the interest of liberty.

Never mind the right to life that's mentioned in the same sentence.

Although I do like this proposal, I think it might be declared a mechanics adjustment. I don't think banning dictatorship is allowed, and revolutions would certainly be a new concept. Then again, it hasn't been deleted yet, so who knows?

What happens if this proposal is passed? People under cruel dictatorships will rebel, should the need and opportunity present itself. But the problem with internal rebellion in NS is that the original founder of the nation would remain in control, and could institute similar policies under the new government. This could only be solved by exiling the nation's leader, which is a major change in game mechanics. This would leave a NS player without a nation, and clog the server with AI controlled nation states that wouldn't ever do anything except evolve and take up valuable space. Then the admins would probably have to delete them; the glorious rebellion against their dictator just got them erased from existance.

The proposal is an admirable attempt at restoring political liberties and may work for NS2, but under the current system of gameplay I don't think it would work in the manner you most likely intended.

...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I would add that they are in the confines of society or you will get lots of problems later on, with people trying to persuade you that shooting their brother was in the interest of liberty.

Never mind the right to life that's mentioned in the same sentence.

Although I do like this proposal, I think it might be declared a mechanics adjustment. I don't think banning dictatorship is allowed, and revolutions would certainly be a new concept. Then again, it hasn't been deleted yet, so who knows?

Enodia already ruled that it does NOT change game mechanics and is a perfectly legitimate proposal in another thread.

...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I would add that they are in the confines of society or you will get lots of problems later on, with people trying to persuade you that shooting their brother was in the interest of liberty.

Never mind the right to life that's mentioned in the same sentence.

Although I do like this proposal, I think it might be declared a mechanics adjustment. I don't think banning dictatorship is allowed, and revolutions would certainly be a new concept. Then again, it hasn't been deleted yet, so who knows?

Enodia already ruled that it does NOT change game mechanics and is a perfectly legitimate proposal in another thread.

BUMP. Last day, please!