The One More Step Towards Individual Freedom Act

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

That would be a pretty weird being a king of 15 micronations. That's not a thing everyone would do, too. You're restricting every citizen's right to be a participant of various projects for the sake of ghostly possibility of someone's xenokingdomship.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Dec 9, 2012 12:49:39 GMT -6 Alèx Soleighlfred said:

That would be a pretty weird being a king of 15 micronations. That's not a thing everyone would do, too. You're restricting every citizen's right to be a participant of various projects for the sake of ghostly possibility of someone's xenokingdomship.

So, that's a "Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with it"?

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

Dec 9, 2012 12:56:51 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

Dec 9, 2012 12:49:39 GMT -6 Alèx Soleighlfred said:

That would be a pretty weird being a king of 15 micronations. That's not a thing everyone would do, too. You're restricting every citizen's right to be a participant of various projects for the sake of ghostly possibility of someone's xenokingdomship.

So, that's a "Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with it"?

Depends on circumstances, but generally - it's a yes.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Dec 9, 2012 12:41:18 GMT -6 Alèx Soleighlfred said:

If a nation is blacklisted, than either such a citizen voluntary leaves his citizenship in Eastern Montana, or his Talossan citizenship is renounced. See point 5 in the proposal. This answers both questions 1 and 2.

3. The countries get blacklisted via the votings held by both houses.

I wouldn't go as far as to analogize dual citizenship with drugs.

First off, I did misread the bill originally. So the Ziu is it? Do we forget that you are placing the blacklisting of countries in the hands of politics?
What if you had a group of dual citizens from Eastern Montana (I do enjoy this example) who formed their own political party in Talossa, lets say they call themselves the Unify Talossa and Eastern Montana, and they received a small minority of seats in the Cosa, 12 or so. The majority party and the current feeling of the government is against their platform, for whatever reason (perhaps because of their stance on Mass Penguin Extermination), so they decide to push through a blacklist of Eastern Montana. You now have a situation where Talossan Citizens are exiled for their political beliefs. Is that freedom?

Don't like drugs as an example? Hmm...how about owning exotic animals or something? You can own whatever animal you want, except for the following list of [x] number of animals. That is creating a whitelist in the end, not a blacklist. Does that mean that the countries that aren't blacklisted could be viewed as allies or favorable countries with Talossa? Since we are diving so head on into foreign affairs, we need to think of this.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Dec 9, 2012 13:07:25 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

Dec 9, 2012 12:41:18 GMT -6 Alèx Soleighlfred said:

If a nation is blacklisted, than either such a citizen voluntary leaves his citizenship in Eastern Montana, or his Talossan citizenship is renounced. See point 5 in the proposal. This answers both questions 1 and 2.

3. The countries get blacklisted via the votings held by both houses.

I wouldn't go as far as to analogize dual citizenship with drugs.

First off, I did misread the bill originally. So the Ziu is it? Do we forget that you are placing the blacklisting of countries in the hands of politics?
What if you had a group of dual citizens from Eastern Montana (I do enjoy this example) who formed their own political party in Talossa, lets say they call themselves the Unify Talossa and Eastern Montana, and they received a small minority of seats in the Cosa, 12 or so. The majority party and the current feeling of the government is against their platform, for whatever reason (perhaps because of their stance on Mass Penguin Extermination), so they decide to push through a blacklist of Eastern Montana. You now have a situation where Talossan Citizens are exiled for their political beliefs. Is that freedom?

It already is in the hand hands of politics Im afraid. Politics decides whats allowed and whats not in Talossa. We should deal with it responsibly though.

What mechanism would you suggest for deciding on this issue?

Don't like drugs as an example? Hmm...how about owning exotic animals or something? You can own whatever animal you want, except for the following list of [x] number of animals. That is creating a whitelist in the end, not a blacklist. Does that mean that the countries that aren't blacklisted could be viewed as allies or favorable countries with Talossa? Since we are diving so head on into foreign affairs, we need to think of this.

No. We dont even recognize them as coutries. Remember that the semi-permeable wall is left intact.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Dec 9, 2012 12:47:49 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Dec 9, 2012 12:42:57 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

So, I can be King of 15 other micronations, and you all wouldn't have a problem with that?

Under the current law I could be King of the Netherlands without any problem. As far as unrecognised 'bug nations' are concerned, we dont recognize them anyway. Let them choose for themselves. Not everything I disagree with should be forbidden.

But if you were the King of the Netherlands, could you be a Senator in the USA, the President of Mexico, a Baron in Luxembourg, a MP in the British Parliament, Mayor of Singapore , and a City Councillor in Rome?

[Glüc da Dhi]

Well, you could propose a law preventing citizens from holding offices in any other nation. (though some citizens would probably not be too happy about that.) But I feel we're discussing another issue than the one we should be discussing here.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Dec 9, 2012 14:02:44 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Well, you could propose a law preventing citizens from holding offices in any other nation. (though some citizens would probably not be too happy about that.) But I feel we're discussing another issue than the one we should be discussing here.

The issue is here:

3. Every citizen can freely and with no restrictions participate in other micronations, unless they are listed in the aforementioned Black List.

You don't define "participate". We should be discussing this.

[Eiric S. Börnatfiglheu]

Part of it is going to depend on the legal definition and status of Talossa qua micronation and attitudes towards similar bodies. If they are recognized as sovereign in some form, then it is an issue of citizenship. If they are not recognized as such, but instead as something akin to fraternal lodges or social groups (Which was Regipats policy regarding the Republic... or something like it if I recall) then I submit that the prohibition could be considered a violation of the free association doctrine in the covenant of rights.

But further:

1.) Comparing it to exercising macronational offices doesn't wash. Nobody would have the time or energy to do so effectively. It is one of the peculiarities of Talossa and micronations that this is less of a bar.

2.) Talossa's policy is to have no truck with micronations aside from maintaining a blacklist, essentially treating the phenomena as if it doesn't exist. How can it be a conflict of interest if there are no intersecting interests?

3.) If Talossa is not a micronation, then why single out a particular form of association?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I have two problems with this bill. The first is that it is riddled with errors and poor phrasing. "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should keep a Black List of micronations that are considered threat for the Kingdom of Talossa or in any way seriously coincide and interfere with the interests of the Kingdom" should be "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall keep a blacklist of micronations that are considered athreat to the Kingdom of Talossa or in any way interfere with the interests of the Kingdom."

The second objection is practical. This is a repeal of the Semi-Permeable Wall Act, and I don't like it. If we change from a whitelist to a blacklist, then it will have to be individually enacted by MinFor before even the most ephemeral of bug nations would be blocked. Further - and more importantly - this would also personalize any such blacklist action. It's unlikely we're going to have more than one or two people in a given micronation, and it is not difficult to foresee that such a bill would look and feel like persecution of those individuals ("Come on, guys! This isn't fair!"). The entire point of the Semi-Permeable Wall is that it recognizes that the overwhelming majority of micronations are a waste of our time and dignity, but that there are a select few that might not be.

[Glüc da Dhi]

25RZ50, the Semi-Permeable Wall Act actually remains intact.

Dec 9, 2012 10:37:16 GMT -6 Alèx Soleighlfred said:

1. This act leaves the definition of micronation and the semi-permeable wall act intact, since these are separate issues and may be dealt with in another bill.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Dec 9, 2012 12:42:57 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

So, I can be King of 15 other micronations, and you all wouldn't have a problem with that?

I have a problem with what Talossans do in Talossa, not with what they do outside of Talossa (or Wittenberg as it were).

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Dec 9, 2012 15:14:20 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

The entire point of the Semi-Permeable Wall

was to codify Ben's paranoia and spite.

[Eiric S. Börnatfiglheu]

Dec 9, 2012 15:46:44 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

Dec 9, 2012 15:14:20 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

The entire point of the Semi-Permeable Wall

was to codify Ben's paranoia and spite.

I can attest to that. At the time of it's passage, I was a practicing micronationalist with another nation. It coincided with the Talossan withdrawl from the LOSS (a body it helped to found) and the beginning of the denigration of the term "micronation." Coming to it from the outside.

[Glüc da Dhi]

I think this act is actually relatively conservative on some points. I guess many MRPT/CSPP/ZRT members and apparently at least one RUMP member would like a much more radical proposal than the current one. It looks like a good compromise to me and a step in the right direction.