by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Confederation of Sovereign States RMB

WA Delegate: The Dominion of Hope and Rationality (elected )

Founder: The Galactic Empire of Sacred Stars

Last WA Update:

World Factbook Entry

Welcome to the Confederation of Sovereign States!

Please read our Regional Constitution >here<
Or investigate the CSS Militia Link>here<

COMMUNITY ROLES:

Artist: Hope and Rationality

Journalist: Latanst

Librettist: Abasinde

Magistrate: Abasinde



Embassies: The Bar on the corner of every region, The Illuminati, International Debating Area, Mapperdonia, The Great Universe, The Great Monarchical Nations, and Civilization Committee.

Tags: Casual, Democratic, Egalitarian, General Assembly, Recruiter Friendly, Regional Government, Silly, Small, and World Assembly.

Regional Power: Moderate

Confederation of Sovereign States contains 6 nations, the 2,609th most in the world.

ActivityHistoryAdministration

Today's World Census Report

The Largest Welfare Programs in Confederation of Sovereign States

Governments ranked highly spend the most on social welfare programs. Nations ranked low tend to have weak or non-existent government welfare.

As a region, Confederation of Sovereign States is ranked 805th in the world for Largest Welfare Programs.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Galactic Empire of Sacred StarsInoffensive Centrist Democracy“When in trouble, always count on your friends”
2.The Dominion of Hope and RationalityLeft-wing Utopia“Forward in mind and soul”
3.The New Republic of AbasindeCorrupt Dictatorship“United We Stand, Divided We Fall”
4.The Federal Republic of WeisswasserNew York Times Democracy“Happy doggo noises”
5.The Coalition of Ithalian EmpireInoffensive Centrist Democracy“PRAISE FOUNDER WASHINGTON”
6.The Empire of LatanstInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Rule Thyself, Force not the Emperor to Rule!”

Regional Happenings

More...

Confederation of Sovereign States Regional Message Board

First things first, we need to check whether there is any interest in revitalizing the Constitution.

If so (and whether in its current form or amended), I would suggest that the Community Roles never aroused much enthusiasm or interest. With our low popularity, I would suggest that these be voted onto a temporary hiatus. It is always better to simplify and to boil things down to their essentials before building things back up.

Third and referring back to the first point, is the Council of Ministers still to our liking or is this part of what needs to be amended in he Constitution?

Let's try to spark a general conversation on the Message Board.

Hope and Rationality wrote:If we were to re-instate the Constitution in some form, what would we do with the Council of Ministers? Do we think there's sufficient interest and motivation in the CSS at the moment that the Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Defence roles would be occupied and actively participate in their duties?

Attention: Silent Members of the Confederation of Sovereign States Community:

Welcome to all the newcomers and to salutations our long-time members.

As you have hopefully seen by reading this Message Board over the past several weeks, some of us are looking for ways to revitalize the Region. Part of those discussions concern the Constitution which has been neglected and fallen into disuse.

We urge our silent audience to join the conversation! In particular, it would be good hear how many of you intend to stay with us and how many are simply 'passing through'. This Region still has a lot of potential in it but we need interested and active members to help with a possible project to rebuild.

Please join us in this conversation! Let us hear from you on the Message Board!

Latanst wrote:First things first, we need to check whether there is any interest in revitalizing the Constitution.

If so (and whether in its current form or amended), I would suggest that the Community Roles never aroused much enthusiasm or interest. With our low popularity, I would suggest that these be voted onto a temporary hiatus. It is always better to simplify and to boil things down to their essentials before building things back up.

Third and referring back to the first point, is the Council of Ministers still to our liking or is this part of what needs to be amended in he Constitution?

Let's try to spark a general conversation on the Message Board.

I find that the Community Roles are ultimately futile and should be suspended indefinitely.
As for the CoM, i propose that we elect a new CoM, as our current administration is dated and needs a firm prod to get the ball rolling again.

To be honest, I'm beginning to think that a project to revitalise the CSS is ultimately a poor use of energy. I think such a project would require the commitment of a notably large group of us. While I'm sure we could be given implicit support from the region, if there are only three of us actively working at pulling things back into action I feel it will be short lived. I think there's an important distinction between liking or not objecting to a revitalisation of the CSS, and actually actively participating in that process.

I for one like the idea of having a full Council of Ministers. But I also acknowledge that there might not be sufficient interest to fill each office competitively. I support re-instating the Constitution as a whole, but I feel the end-game may need to be a frank discussion of what we gain by sitting in the CSS, waiting for someone else to do the region work for us, and perhaps dividing accordingly. I don't want to set everything up again just so it falls down in four months

Hey mates. I'm curious as to what y'all feel about protesting, and by extension, riots. ¿How do you feel about the right to protest in general?

I support the right to assemble and protest, but, as most people, i stop shy of rioting. I understand the point of rioting (i'm discounting looting from this concept of rioting), as it is absolutely one of the most terrifying for authorities, be they local or beyond. Rioting definitely catches the eye of your fellow man, whether it makes him join your side or move against you. Though rioting is usually counterproductive, it definitely can be touch paper for greater revolt, which can definitely intimidate authorities into enacting necessary reforms. Equally, authorities can simply double down and simply quell the revolt. It often can be a 50/50. But sometimes it's the only way to make people listen to you and your cause. As horrible as political violence is, sometimes it's necessary to break a stagnate political process.
As for looters, may the citizenry reserve the right to shoot those who damage their property on the spot. Large businesses simply have much of their property insured, but the common people can afford such and should be able to do what is necessary to defend themselves and their livelihoods, be it against mobs or the state.

Abasinde wrote:Hey mates. I'm curious as to what y'all feel about protesting, and by extension, riots. ¿How do you feel about the right to protest in general?

I support the right to assemble and protest, but, as most people, i stop shy of rioting. I understand the point of rioting (i'm discounting looting from this concept of rioting), as it is absolutely one of the most terrifying for authorities, be they local or beyond. Rioting definitely catches the eye of your fellow man, whether it makes him join your side or move against you. Though rioting is usually counterproductive, it definitely can be touch paper for greater revolt, which can definitely intimidate authorities into enacting necessary reforms. Equally, authorities can simply double down and simply quell the revolt. It often can be a 50/50. But sometimes it's the only way to make people listen to you and your cause. As horrible as political violence is, sometimes it's necessary to break a stagnate political process.
As for looters, may the citizenry reserve the right to shoot those who damage their property on the spot. Large businesses simply have much of their property insured, but the common people can afford such and should be able to do what is necessary to defend themselves and their livelihoods, be it against mobs or the state.

I think you're missing a step. When does something count as rioting? Before we even get to talk about when rioting is justified, there's a whole political background of when something is called rioting. A classic tactic to delegitimise protesting or other types of demonstrations is to call them rioting. It's difficult to call them rioting when there isn't any violence, but also it's difficult to have large scale demonstrations of people when there are no acts of violence whatsoever (i.e. one person smashing a car window out of 1,000 otherwise peaceful people. Alternatively: 1 day of violence in 1 part of a country, out of 50 days of peaceful, widespread demonstrations). When a group is opposed to a set of demonstrations they might call them riots. They will always have some examples of violence to choose from to make that assertion, justified or not. At the same time groups that are more positive about the demonstrations will typically call them 'peaceful protests'. So before you talk about when a riot is justified, you need to figure out whose definition of a riot or a peaceful protest you're using.

The same group, such as Fox News, CNN, or even the Chinese Government, might each call one event rioting and another peaceful protesting, when both are basically identical (obviously each will have different views from one another most of the time). I remember hearing about the same Fox News presenter giving a story about a shop owner refusing to obey social distancing/isolation measures. The presenter called them a patriot exercising their civil rights, and said anyone opposing them was in the wrong. Later they covered a story on some of the first days of the George Floyd Protests, calling the demonstrations a clear breach of social distancing/isolation measures, as unlawful, dangerous, and harmful

I believe in a social contract, whereby being a citizen of a country entitles you to the full protection of that country to the full extent it can be provided. I believe that everyone has a right to demonstrate peacefully in a way that has their voices heard - so I don't like the practice of protests being allowed only in isolated, small or dispersed locations. I also recognise that protests should not disrupt essential services that are necessary to maintain people's safety and health.

I believe that if a country is not fulfilling its side of the social contract with a portion of its people, these are increasingly entitled for their plight to be heard, first to their own country and then to others if still no help comes. Somewhere down this line rioting is justified, so long as other avenues are exhausted and there is a realistic chance that their conditions can still be alleviated by their country.

I have found some of the interviews really interesting on this topic for the US right now. Here's one that's become very well known: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llci8MVh8J4

My takeaway from this all is that obviously rioting is bad. But that's sort of the point. We should ask why rioting is happening, and why are so many people seeing it as the best option? As the woman in the Youtube video, Kimberly Jones, starts saying from about 5:08, rioting is in this instance an expression that the system of order isn't applying anyway, so rioting means something very different for these people than it does for me, someone who has always been able to count on my system to treat me how I expect it should.

But ultimately, I don't support some idea of a revolution. When the dust settles, it's about real social, political and economic change for people. In our world this looks like policy, education and wisdom. It doesn't look like a red flag

Re- my first post: The way authorities and especially the police respond to a demonstration can be very influential on whether it becomes a riot. In places such as the US there are such things as de-escalation tactics. The way a movement or a localised protest/riot behaves is in part (but not wholly) determined by how police interact with them. There have definitely been times riots have started because police cracked down on them too hard, and/or footage has circulated of police injuring a protester of journalist. Involvement from counter protesters can do the same thing.

Personally I think it's all very murky, and too hard to give a single answer about when something like this is right or wrong, since it's so easy to spin one way or the other

I am coming late to the party but thought I would share a few thoughts. I find myself largely agreeing with H&R though I think rioting is much more easily defined than does he.

Nonetheless, peaceful protest in a free-society should always be allowed to proceed up to the point when 'peaceful' begins to devolve into physical damage or a restraint on non-protestors' freedom of movement and ability to go about their own business unmolested. As an example at one extreme, here in Japan most protests are announced in advance (particularly strikes in the public sector or outside demonstrations). Strikes happen off hours so that train strikes do not interfere with the daily commute, street protests generally take place on large streets moving with traffic and occupying a lane or two so that drivers are not annoyed. Still, the point of the protestors is being made and their voices heard. Luckily, society and government are careful to be responsive to serious concerns and steps are usually take to resolve the problems before they get out of hand.

In general and in places like the US, the process begins to fall apart when people begin to perceive that they are not being heard. As we have seen throughout the world, people will resort to increasing levels of violence if they believe their claims are just and that those in a position to adjust reality are not responding.

Obviously, the answer is not to allow things to get to this point but that it is not always a situation that can be easily resolved. The longer and louder these difference become, the harder they are to resolve. Emotion plays a dangerous role and actions by 'bad actors' (including unethical politicians and the media) can lead to true chaos, widespread violence and eventually societal breakdown.

One observation, whether short-term or a problem lasting centuries, no matter the issue when members of a 'society' begin seeing that society in terms of 'we' and 'they' problems become much more difficult to resolve and problems become much more permanent. There are many societies around the world where certain factions are highly motivated to divide people into sub-groups where the focus is on the differences rather than the shared traits. Modern thought in the West encourages this way of thinking and is in many ways suicidal as a result.

For anyone curious, I received the following telegram two days ago from DiRito-Opolis

Greetings World Assembly Delegates!

Before you dismiss this, this is in fact not a voting recommendation! This telegram is to formally invite you and your regionmates to an NS-wide wrestling tournament hosted by the Augustin Alliance, entitled “F in the Chat”. I opened the signup forms to Discord users in a few regions and at present we have quite a few signups, but we could always use more!

Put your nation name down to represent an athlete, watch him or her go all the way, and gain bragging rights! The winning nation will also get a few surprises!

You can sign up here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfd1YeFZoqJZLiYAUO0kMbFJnBSrEY-LjZBjxRUrdoEvlLh-A/viewform

Here are some vignettes:
https://imgur.com/a/ilW9l1B
https://imgur.com/a/uZliaVc

Please note that spots are limited!

Forum View

Advertisement