Northeast Assembly Thread

[tpfkaw]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

[Free Palestine]

I agree with wormyguy.

If a population within some sort of political entity wish to secede, there should be nothing to stop such a thing, as long as it is through due process.  Otherwise would be nothing short of tyranny in the highest form.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I agree with wormyguy.

If a population within some sort of political entity wish to secede, there should be nothing to stop such a thing, as long as it is through due process.  Otherwise would be nothing short of tyranny in the highest form.

It's not tyranny at all, as long as the government is not oppressive and goes by the social contract.

[tpfkaw]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

[Cincinnatus]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

The majority don't refuse to do so.  If they want to refuse to vote, that is their right.  The majority in REALITY however, do pay taxes, and do send their children to school.  Government, though it can very often be a hindrance to personal liberty, is also necessary to preserve it.  To say otherwise, in my opinion, is a fallacy.  Now, if a state wishes to seek division through legislative means, fine.  Perhaps we, or I, should make it clear that my argument regards those who should wish to revolt, with arms, in a manner that is prohibited already by the Regions and Atlasia's constitution. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

The majority don't refuse to do so.  If they want to refuse to vote, that is their right.  The majority in REALITY however, do pay taxes, and do send their children to school.  Government, though it can very often be a hindrance to personal liberty, is also necessary to preserve it.  To say otherwise, in my opinion, is a fallacy.  Now, if a state wishes to seek division through legislative means, fine.  Perhaps we, or I, should make it clear that my argument regards those who should wish to revolt, with arms, in a manner that is prohibited already by the Regions and Atlasia's constitution. 

It does say that?  I checked both constitutions and I couldn't find it.  This bill sets a policy for the Northeast government to keep its union together and not diplomatically recognize states that attempt to secede, so it's a tad different.  A law that simply says "don't rebel" isn't really effective, because states that declare independence wouldn't abide by our laws.

[Cincinnatus]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

The majority don't refuse to do so.  If they want to refuse to vote, that is their right.  The majority in REALITY however, do pay taxes, and do send their children to school.  Government, though it can very often be a hindrance to personal liberty, is also necessary to preserve it.  To say otherwise, in my opinion, is a fallacy.  Now, if a state wishes to seek division through legislative means, fine.  Perhaps we, or I, should make it clear that my argument regards those who should wish to revolt, with arms, in a manner that is prohibited already by the Regions and Atlasia's constitution. 

It does say that?  I checked both constitutions and I couldn't find it.  This bill sets a policy for the Northeast government to keep its union together and not diplomatically recognize states that attempt to secede, so it's a tad different.  A law that simply says "don't rebel" isn't really effective, because states that declare independence wouldn't abide by our laws.

It doesn't say the same as your "Resolution", but it includes the states that belong to the Region.  Plus, Federal law directly directly addresses this.  Not that this Resolution has no place, because it's a worthwhile debate in this Assembly.

[tpfkaw]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.

He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.

[tpfkaw]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.

He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.

Say they don't pay their taxes or send their kids to school.

(And yes, such things have happened - the aforementioned Soviet example, or Northern Ireland, would be two obvious ones).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.

He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.

Say they don't pay their taxes or send their kids to school.

(And yes, such things have happened - the aforementioned Soviet example, or Northern Ireland, would be two obvious ones).

Then they would be in violation of the law, obviously.

[Cincinnatus]

Debate has ended.  The Assembly will now vote on the bill in question.  Voting will last 24 hours.  The final bill reads as follows;

Scott Doctrine

It shall be policy of the Northeast Region that it will ensure, by any means necessary, that its ten states- Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont- are embodied together and that each shall be assimilated within the Republic of Atlasia.  States that secede shall receive no diplomatic recognition from the Northeast Region.

[Cincinnatus]

Sorry I couldn't do this earlier, my power went out around 10:30, and I had to go to work around 12:00.  Either way, at least we got some debate on this, for once.

Aye

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

Exceptions which you did not address or offer any amendments for.

[Cincinnatus]

Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

Exceptions which you did not address or offer any amendments for.

Sadly, I have to agree with Scott on this.

[tpfkaw]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.

He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.

Say they don't pay their taxes or send their kids to school.

(And yes, such things have happened - the aforementioned Soviet example, or Northern Ireland, would be two obvious ones).

Then they would be in violation of the law, obviously.

And what would you then do about it?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.

He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.

Say they don't pay their taxes or send their kids to school.

(And yes, such things have happened - the aforementioned Soviet example, or Northern Ireland, would be two obvious ones).

Then they would be in violation of the law, obviously.

And what would you then do about it?

...Uh, well, like most lawbreakers, they would then be charged for it, I would assume.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Look, debate is over, just vote, wormyguy.

Aye.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

Exceptions which you did not address or offer any amendments for.

Honestly, I was thinking along the lines of wormyguy--what if a state's people really want to secede?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

Exceptions which you did not address or offer any amendments for.

Honestly, I was thinking along the lines of wormyguy--what if a state's people really want to secede?

Here are three good reasons.

1. As stated before, there's simply no reason for a state to secede because none of the governments of Atlasia are depriving anyone of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
2. What if someone ran for public office in one of the regions and, say, lost?  If they declare independence for their state, that person could just crown themselves king and basically ruin the point of the game.  This region should discourage that type of behavior by not diplomatically recognizing the independent state.
3. A divided house fails.  If the region dissolves, it loses citizens and thus becomes weaker.

[Cincinnatus]

Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

Exceptions which you did not address or offer any amendments for.

Honestly, I was thinking along the lines of wormyguy--what if a state's people really want to secede?

Here are three good reasons.

1. As stated before, there's simply no reason for a state to secede because none of the governments of Atlasia are depriving anyone of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
2. What if someone ran for public office in one of the regions and, say, lost?  If they declare independence for their state, that person could just crown themselves king and basically ruin the point of the game.  This region should discourage that type of behavior by not diplomatically recognizing the independent state.
3. A divided house fails.  If the region dissolves, it loses citizens and thus becomes weaker.

The Atlasian constitution prohibits both monarchs and secession, so..