See main forum: Will the real International Federalist please stand up?

Was inspired by some of the stuff on this forum!

For God's sake, don't push me into a discussion like that where the other IntFeds are... the IntFeds already on the thread. :augh:

I have a reputation to preserve! :lol:

We approve this message...

Well hey I got a prominently placed link in regardless. >.>

By request (Urgench!) the real International Federalist did stand up :lol:

Okay, not to be a dick, but do we really want this in the "Who we are and what we're about" section of the forum?

I ask this because if I remember correctly this section of the forum can be seen by anyone, even if they don't register.

I would like to point out that I do not find Knoot's argumentation in the OP on the NS Forum to be compelling. At all.

A federation is a government which the member states surrender their right to coin their own money, make their own foreign policy, declare war, make peace, and any other right that Sovereign states have that is reserved for the Federal Authority.

An example of a Federation would be the United States. Georgia for example can't print its own money. There is no Georgia Dollar. Georgia cannot make war or peace, Georgia cannot directly disobey any order from the federal government.

As such any true national sovereigntist--IE one who sees the the WA's job to deal only with international issues. That is to say one view the WA's job to only deal with issues that do or may cross internationally recognized national boundaries, or which uphold some more or less universally held belief (IE beliefs upheld by the vast majority of "reasonable" and "civilized" nations) only cannot be in favor of any type of international federation.

National Sovereigntists uphold the belief, ideology or faith; whatever one might call it, that an issue that only concerns the activity of people within a nation is a national issue. How this or that state may deal with the issue at hand is more or less irrelevant to us.

Any section of the forum can be seen by anyone, whether or not they register. Sovereigntist Saloon is a public forum.

And please let's not get into another U.S. vs European federalism conflict here; the one on the NS forums was bad enough.

In that case my objection to the placement is moot.

My intention was not to get into such a debate. I was merely using the US as an example of what a federation is. My main disagreement with Knoot's OP on the NS forum is that I disagree with being called an International Federalist. I'm not. If I join a region that is a (con-)federation, then thats my business; however, the WA should not attempt to be a federation, much less a unitary world government, at all.

Then don't start one.

I'm not sure you're really arguing against Knoot here, I'm pretty certain he wasn't forcing the label of International Federalist on you, or anyone for that matter.


Are you certain you got the gist of what knoot was actually arguing?

I would say for National Soverigntists to start calling themselves International Federalists would be disingenuous. Not to mention that the very idea gives me the a severe case of the creeps.

Why is that? Because there really are those out there who would like for the WA to act as some sort of international federation. There are also those who want the WA to act like a unitary world government. I'm neither of these two. I'm not interested in the WA being an international federation of any type, style or manner whatsoever. I'm interested in my nation having the freedom to have the institutions, laws and culture that it finds pleasing for itself; not the WA mandating which side the toilet paper should be pulled from in my citizen's defecation chambers.

What National Sovereignty means: A nation having the freedom develop the culture, characteristics and society that it wants on its own. A nation cannot do that if the WA is telling it how to do everything.

That is not to say that I oppose federalism as a principle, or an international federalism within a region. I'm fine with that, if the members of the region want that for their regional government, sure be my guest.

But over the course of time I've come to understand the NatSov V. IntFed debate to boil down roughly to this: NatSovers tend to view the WA as a powerful organization which if not restrained and used responsibly tramples liberty, and creates tyranny. IntFeds tend to the view the WA as the only thing that stands in between nations and crushing their citizens with complete domination, never-mind that these citizens are mythological creations.

I also disagree with the idea that Sovereigntists, by writing legislation are actually "improving the world resolution at a time" which is the supposed credo of the International Federalists. Rather I think most Sovereigntists liberty protect one blocker at a time, one repeal at a time.

I really would like to encourage you to read my arguments again, Monkiah. The very thrust of my argument was that Federalism has guarantees and safeguards against unnecessary intrusion from the highest level, whereas a World Government point of view does not. I don't believe we should accept their labels, when at times the label makes us sound like a bunch of Tea Party fringe lunatics.

Use whatever label you like.

I /am/ still hoping for the feedback I explicitly asked NatSovers for in the thread, with regards to proportionality, subsidiarity etc as useful principles.

I have read your arguments several times. If I had not, I wouldn't have said anything about the work in question. I rarely charge into debates blind; I have learned that when I do, I usually make an ass of myself. I can't say that I've read all five pages of the thread though. It degenerated into an argument over "American Federalism" vs. "European Federalism" very quickly and couldn't hold my interests.

I got that in your first post on the thread. I wasn't unclear on that at all. However, seeing as the WA does not and probably cannot have a constitution, such as the US has or EU could at some point have, which specifically names which political unit has which power a federation, in the sense of either cases, is impossible. The end result being that over time the forces of the One Worlders will gain the upper hand unless constant battle is waged to preserve national sovereignty.

Indeed even if there was such a constitution there is no guarantee that the highest level of governance would not impose itself on subordinate levels of governance outside of the powers that this higher level was specifically given. The history of my nation is filled with such examples and indeed fought a civil war over the issue (along with slavery).

I am unsure as to where or how those two labels originated. Presumably they occurred before the time of my first NS nation as they already were in use then. I say this because for a short period of time when I was a n00b I thought that international federalism was possible and would not result in WA tyranny (and the WA was called the UN at the time).

As such I don't think the problem is the label, which incidentally has been around long enough to not make us that adhere to its principles seem like lunatics anyway, but the behavior of some Sovereigntists themselves acting like lunatics.

I have met in my time sovereigntists who were on the left side of the left-right scale, I'm one of them. I have also met sovereigntists who were on the right side of the left-right scale. National Sovereignty as a NS political ideology I feel is beyond left-right disagreements.

Rather the "Great Debate", as I call it, focuses much more on what the WA should do rather than what it can do, as given the nature of the game mechanics it literally can do anything it pleases provided a voting majority passes it.

Good, cause I like National Sovereigntist, and I plan on sticking with it. :D

I don't know if you will get that in the festering pit of vipers that is known as the GA Chambers.

My personal feelings are pretty simple to explain, if it isn't an international issue its a national issue or a sub-national issue and the WA should keep its overly large proboscis out of it, full stop.

It is for that reason that I have a WA puppet that can be subject to the whims of the unwashed hoard that is known as the WA, while the main nation does exactly as it pleases.