Keokuk is not for sale

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

As a resident of Iowa, I am humbled by the prospect that The Hawkeye State, alongside two of our great neighbors, has been chosen as one of the three hosts to a new capital region. However, the bill's language and its implementation of these new policies threatens the autonomy of our state, its people, and its right to choose whether or not it surrenders land to the federal government.

Therefore, I am hereby establishing the federal Not For Sale Party. The goal is not to get as many members as possible, nor to exist for time immemorial. I hope to get just enough members to where NFS, alongside its allies in larger political parties, can carry influence on the implementation of a new capital region. Our party is based on three core beliefs:

Belief #1 - The bill is based on the presumption that Keokuk is Nyman's to take.

When I make that statement, I do not mean that the acquisition is not at least partially legal, at least under current federal law. Article III Section 3 and Article VII Section 2.4 both could both be interpreted as giving the Senate the right to invade whatever part of the country it wants. However, the federal government's move is both legally questionable and morally unethical. I pose to the Atlasian government four questions:

1. Exactly how many civilians of Lee County, Hancock County, and/or Clark County did you talk to before voting on this proposal?
2. Why are you being ambiguous with whether or not the new Nyman will be classified as a state or as four imaginary lines in the sand, when this could potentially be interpreted as a gross violation of Article VII Section 2.1 of the Fifth Constitution?
3. How much of your hometown are you willing to surrender to the federal government when they bring in the bulldozers without consent or compensation?
4. Why are we, as a country, more concerned with the name of the capital over the rights and desires of the people who already live there?

Belief #2 - We're not opposed to the re-location to Keokuk, we're opposed to the implementation.

I have been an early advocate of moving the national capital to the tri-state area, actually. While it was a lot more informal, and the records of which aren't well maintained as I talked about it on the old, now deleted, Lokcord, but I was one of the first to suggest the idea of federal operations being based out of the three counties making up the regions' tripoint. Specifically, splitting the federal government among the executive branch based in Iowa, the legislative branch based in Illinois, and the judicial branch based in Missouri.

However, whether as a thought experiment or as praxis, I have been consistently opposed to the idea of implementing such an idea through eminent domain. This belief is at the heart of the party, and understanding this is primary to understanding our cause.

Belief #3 - What to do next.

The NFSP believes that the federal government should immediately do four things:

1. Pause its implementation of SB 117-41.
2. Hold a referendum among NPCs in the affected area, to be counted and validated by the GM team.
3. Continue with the implementation of SB 117-41 if, and only if, the aforementioned referendum passes.
4. (less important at the moment) Consider a constitutional amendment banning eminent domain.


If the federal government does not listen to our advice, we will contest candidates for the December 2023 federal elections, with a slate consisting of both NFSP members and politicians of other parties and affiliations that subscribe to our party's three tenants.

Iowa is not for sale.
Illinois is not for sale.
Missouri is not for sale
The people of Atlasia are not for sale.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The problem with an NPC referendum is that at the end of the day, it's three people who vote: the GM Cao, the GM Weatherboy and the GM Forumlurker.

I'll introduce legislation to compensate people if their houses are in danger (but I already considered that as part of the funding budget).

[tmthforu94]

You can pick to have a capital anywhere and yall choose MISSOURI??

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

You can pick to have a capital anywhere and yall choose MISSOURI??

The idea from what I understand was to move it so no one region controlled the capital as it is now. After the secession attempt earlier this year, it is understandable to not want the federal government to be held hostage by one region (even if everyone in game can suddenly, yknow, teleport away to their home state from Nyman)

[LAKISYLVANIA]

It's some nice universe-building as well. I mean... it's just a game. IRL i would not support moving the capital either.

I do think with our decentralized system heavily focused on the three regions, it makes a lot of sense. Just don't get really why people are so against the capital, exc. for the feeling that some people are against everything that's being proposed.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

It's some nice universe-building as well. I mean... it's just a game. IRL i would not support moving the capital either.

I do think with our decentralized system heavily focused on the three regions, it makes a lot of sense. Just don't get really why people are so against the capital, exc. for the feeling that some people are against everything that's being proposed.

Once again, this is not a campaign against the new capital, but against federal overreach and eminent domain over territory that is Iowa's, Illinois', and Missouri's to donate, like Maryland and Virginia did with Washington/Nyman, not for the federal government to carve out its share of my state like it's pie.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think it's a neat addition to the game. People can register in the same city and still reside in the region of their choice. This would obviously be a very silly idea in real life, but in the context of the game I think it's fair to suspend some disbelief here. If the GMs call a referendum... I hope they wouldn't be party poopers.

You can pick to have a capital anywhere and yall choose MISSOURI??

Kansans be like

[RC (a la Frémont)]

There are much better ways for the federal government to go about this than eminent domain. The interpretations of Article III Section 3 and Article VII Section 2.4 are strikingly familiar sounding to what inevitably became the Kansas crisis. This is the people's land, settled and established for generations, and the folks in the Senate better give thought to them before they do anything.

(not like that stopped us before i guess)

[Liminal Trans Girl]

Will Pen Island be allowed to exist?

[Joseph Cao]

The problem with an NPC referendum is that at the end of the day, it's three people who vote: the GM Cao, the GM Weatherboy and the GM Forumlurker.

It actually is not, strictly speaking, it would be modelled on existing residents of the three states.

Wow I wonder how Koopa's effort here would affect the outcome of a hypothetical referendum… hmm…

[OBD]

The problem with an NPC referendum is that at the end of the day, it's three people who vote: the GM Cao, the GM Weatherboy and the GM Forumlurker.

It actually is not, strictly speaking, it would be modelled on existing residents of the three states.

Wow I wonder how Koopa's effort here would affect the outcome of a hypothetical referendum… hmm…

npc elections? in 2023???

[Joseph Cao]

The problem with an NPC referendum is that at the end of the day, it's three people who vote: the GM Cao, the GM Weatherboy and the GM Forumlurker.

It actually is not, strictly speaking, it would be modelled on existing residents of the three states.

Wow I wonder how Koopa's effort here would affect the outcome of a hypothetical referendum… hmm…

npc elections? in 2023???

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

The problem with an NPC referendum is that at the end of the day, it's three people who vote: the GM Cao, the GM Weatherboy and the GM Forumlurker.

It actually is not, strictly speaking, it would be modelled on existing residents of the three states.

Wow I wonder how Koopa's effort here would affect the outcome of a hypothetical referendum… hmm…

npc elections? in 2023???

it would be the perfect way to gauge interest in a potential small revival of it...

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Well the rules are what they are. It has passed, and now people are telling me that I need to have a referendum on the topic as well, even if it's not required in the constitution. One doesn't change the rules after something has passed... . It's like deciding to play a football match again because people want to change the rules.

I really don't understand the issue of it, it was advocated a ton by you apparently on Discord. To me, it sounds like being difficult for the sake of being difficult. Besides, i don't really trust "an NPC referendum". It makes the GM team also vulnerable for outside pressure and influence (remember the Greenland thing).

For your concerns on eminent domain, i invite you to write a bill that would deal with it, and i'll sponsor it in the senate. I'm myself not familiar enough with that, and I doubt people would like to see a ChatGPT-written bill on the topic instead. But i'll say, i believe in fair and just compensation and the right of these people to get in houses that will be built for a cheaper prices (so beneficial measures), but the government should have the authority to build whatever they can if it's for the greater good. At the end it'll make everyone in Iowa, Missouri and western Illinois richer. Everybody benefits!

[Joseph Cao]

Well the rules are what they are. It has passed, and now people are telling me that I need to have a referendum on the topic as well, even if it's not required in the constitution. One doesn't change the rules after something has passed... . It's like deciding to play a football match again because people want to change the rules.

Protests against laws that have passed IRL happen all the time. That's not "changing the rules."