Lessons from Germany

[kri]

Azul!

Talossa recently had problems with a political party that wanted to do away with large numbers of citizens. Part of the problem, perhaps, was that there was nothing "wrong" with this agenda -- it was a legal agenda under the Organic Law. (When they lost the election they resorted to illegal tactics, but that is another issue entirely.)

In Germany, given their experience with extremist parties in the Weimar Republic leading to the rise of the Nazis (who also wanted to do away with large numbers of citizens), the German Basic Law (constitution) places certain restrictions on the ideological orientation of political parties: "Parties which, by reason of their aims or the behavior of their adherents, seek to impair or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany, shall be unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court shall decide on the question of unconstitutionality."

This provision allowed for the banning of the neo-Nazi Socialist Reich Party in 1952 and the Communist Party of Germany (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands--KPD) in 1956.

Would it be in Talossa's interests to come up with some common ground principles that all Talossans are supposed to agree on -- like the fundamental equality and equal rights of all naturalized Talossans, for instance, or even the Monarchy? -- and write this into the Organic Law, with a German-like provision for excluding anti-system groups from the process?

The point of this, I would hope, would not be to start banning political parties. It would instead be a message to our own people and to the world, saying "We welcome your participation, but don't expect to be able to change everything about Talossa. Some things are just a 'given.'"

Just food for thought -- what do you think?

Ben

[markymark]

Although I may find certain political views repugnant, I still accept that they have a right to exist in Talossa. Certain elements may creep into Talossa that would not be desirable, such as racism, homophobia or republicanism. As despicable as all of these may be, in order to preserve freedom for all citizens we must preserve it even for the unsavoury segments of the population.

In order to prevent Talossa going down a dangerous road (such as eliminating the monarchy) we need to put safeguards in place that make it difficult to do so. For example in Canada to abolish the monarchy approval in the House of Commons, the Senate and ratification by the Provinces, etc. would be required. If we placed certain things, such as human rights and the monarchy under similar provisions we could prevent the risk of citizens overthrowing our rights and treasured freedoms.

[Xhorxh Asmour]

Remember the persecutions the Turks suffered in Germany. To me Canada is one of the best examples in the world in terms of well-balanced laws and good use of civil liberties.

[seahobbit]

I am also in agreement, we can make things that we currently value harder to change, but I would not make them completely impossible. A society needs to adapt and sometimes change to survive and as much as we'd want to we cannot forsee the future.

As much as we all believe that the Monarchy is important now, there is no telling what Talossans hundreds of years from now would want. On the other hand, past experiences has shown that some things need to have more protections in case a corrupt government would end up in power.

This is why OrgLaw amendments needs 2/3 of each house of the Ziu as well as a majority of all citizens to pass while a simple act can become law by a majority of the Ziu or simply PD by the PM.

I agree with Marcus, as bad ideas as they might be every citizens ought to have the right to express their opinions and the possibility to change everything, including the fundamental laws of the land must be preserve while ensuring that important Talossan values cannot be squash easily by the next party in power.

Quite a balancing act actually.

[kri]

>I agree with Marcus, as bad ideas as they might be every citizens ought to have the right to express their opinions and the possibility to change everything, including the fundamental laws of the land must be preserve while ensuring that important Talossan values cannot be squash easily by the next party in power.

Thanks, these are all quite valid points of view. I guess where I was going with this is illustrated by this example. Once upon a time we had a fairly large bloc of people (the Liberal Party) who joined Talossa and who were just infatuated by "micronations," about having "relations" with them and "joining" with them and whatever. But the rest of the country just wouldn't budge. Indeed, the more "relations" we had with them only convinced us that that was the wrong road to go.

This eventually became a huge internal controversy in Talossa and when it was resolved, it was an excuse for the Liberals to quit Talossa en masse and eventually end up attacking us from the outside. What I was trying to say by my proposal was sort of "Look, world, Talossa doesn't have 'relations' with micronations. If that sort of thing interests you, go somewhere else. But don't come in here and try and divide us on that issue.'"

But evidently, this is not going anywhere, so I'll shut up now.

Ben

[jj]

I see this idea has already been dropped, but just thought I'd chime in anyway.

The old, old "American Nationalist Party of Talossa" - ancestor to the TNP - once called explicity for Talossa to be absorbed into the body of the USA lock, stock and barrel. This was subsequently "toned down" over the months and years in ways that would have allowed Talossa to exist as a nation, but that it would maintain a very close alliance with the USA.

My point is that the ANPT did not sweep into power and dissolve Talossa. It was not popular to do so. I think anyone should be allowed freedom to try, but they will have to suffer the consequences of an uninterested body of citizens.

Clearly, however, there must be provisions in the Orglaw that make this, or something akin to it, very, very, very difficult.

[kri]

Perhaps then a list of these "out of bounds" issues should be drawn up for consideration for inclusion in the Organic Law?

I think this might be an interesting, thought-provoking project that gets to the heart of "what Talossa means to us." One issue that I personally would consider "out of bounds" (others may differ, natch) and worthy of OrgLaw inclusion might be "Talossa does not have, and does not seek to have, 'diplomatic relations' or any other contacts with so-called 'micronations.'" That issue has bedevilled us in the past.

Ben

[seahobbit]

Along the same line, I would actually support to have as ben stated a prohbition from the government to have or to seek 'diplomatic relations' or any other contacts with so-called 'micronations. This I believe would easily pass now, and any future government wishing to enter into relations with other micronations would need the approval of the citizens through an the referendum needed for an OrgLaw amendment. Not impossible, but not as simple as the passing of an act.

[markymark]

I would also support an amendment to the Org Law that would prevent forming relationships with micronations. This policy should not be impossible to change, but make it much more difficult to accomplish.

[Xhorxh Asmour]

ok

[inksplash]

I also think that a blanket prohibition against inter-micro relations should NOT be Organic. I'm still nourishing hope (much fainter now than in previous years) that someday a sufficiently mature micronation will emerge, one worth talking to. If that happens, we shouldn't have the highest law in the land preventing us from timely conversations.

While it would be nice for people to "grow up and become Talossans", it is also arrogant as hell to expect the whole micronational world to surrender their hard-won independence, abandon their own accomplishments, and subordinate their own ways, methods, and systems in favor of ours. "Better to reign in Hell..."

Other people are capable of, and deserving of, pride in their own hard work as His Majesty is in his. All I'm saying is we should leave ourselves space to recognize that.

[seahobbit]

You make a very good and sound point, Gary.

Keep in mind however, that depending on the wording of an OrgLaw amendments prohibition, it still may be possible under some circumstances to have dealings with "worthy" micronations.

What we are talking about is exactly that. How do we ensure that dealings with other micronations would be with the approval of most citizens. The only way I see this would be through an Orglaw amendment.

[Xhorxh Asmour]

Due to the problems we had last year I was for some time against having relations with other micronations, but on second thought we would be selfish and arrogant if we thought of ourselves as the only micronation deserving to exist or worthy of public attention and recognition. Also, we don't have to hide in a trench surrounded by barbed wire for the rest of our lives in fear of new treasons or defections.
A referendum would be a good idea, as well as amendments to the current laws.

[kri]

If having "relations" with micronations brings more citizens into Talossa and helps Talossa build itself up, then I'm all for it.

If not, then I'm against it.

And a decade of experience has taught me that it brings no benefits whatsoever to us.

Ben