The very first piece on this blog that was not the final drafts of the constitution was a discussion of the theory and history behind Edan, That article focused on Edan as a stable, personal, just, non-territorial nation. But it left out a portion of the history of the formation of Edan. That portion was a desire to assist stateless people.
'Refugee' means 'a person outside of their home nation because of persecution, actual or feared'
'Stateless Person' means either 'a person that has no legal recognition of citizenship with any nation (de jure statelessness)' or 'a person outside of their nation of citizenship who cannot avail themselves of the benefits of their nationality for valid reasons such as a state of war, loss of documentation, etc. (de facto statelessness or undocumented statelessness)'.
Not all refugees are stateless and not all stateless people are refugees.
Without citizenship it can be effectively impossible to travel - a stateless person often cannot cross borders, obtain a visa, or (often) apply for asylum. On a day-to-day level they often cannot legally hold a job, gain licences or certifications, get an education, receive health care, etc. Such people commonly cannot register such events and births, marriages, and deaths. In many nations they may be detained at will. In short, by being stateless they both can't live where they are and can't leave where they are.
The UNHCR estimates that there are about 11 million stateless people in the world (equal to the population of Belgium) and a large number of these stateless people are multi-generational families in places like Palestine and the Balkans where stateless parents give birth to stateless children.
One of the goals of the Kingdom is to achieve a level of diplomatic and political recognition as a Non-Territorial Nation that Edan can assist stateless people in finding new citizenship either directly,by offering Edanian citizenship, or indirectly by providing them with the minimum level of identity documentation to allow them to seek asylum/citizenship elsewhere.
King Richard sees this as 'showing love to the foreigner' in a profound way.
The King is well aware that many Edanians are eager to aid persecuted Christians in Iraq and other parts of the world.
So is King Richard. When Edan is capable of helping refugees and the stateless persecuted Christians will be a primary goal for assistance. When Edan was founded in 1999 it was in the face of severe persecution of Christians in Sudan, India, and Chechnya (among many other places). It is well documented bythe International Society for Human Rights (based in Germany), Civitas UK, and many other organizations that 80% of all religious persecution is the persecution of Christians. In 2013, before the attacks in Iraq and the Levant, it was estimated that at least 200 million Christians were being persecuted or outright attacked for their faith. This means that if you were to gather all the world's persecuted and oppressed Christians together it would be the 6th largest nation in the world .
Putanother way, the number of Christians being persecuted in the world right now exceeds the combined populations of the citizens of all religions of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Israel combined.
So what can Edan do?
Right now we can pray and educate. We are not yet at the 'critical mass' needed to gain the economic and political wight needed to do more. As much as we have grown, as much as we have already done, we need to be much larger before we can reach the point of political and diplomatic recognition.
Maybe the most important thing you can do is help Edan grow. Talk to others, use the flyers and handouts we have sent in the past. Pay your taxes. Get Edan to the size where we cannot be ignored. A Media Kit will be issued soon so that you can canvas radio, print, universities, and television stations - King Richard will talk to anyone of good will about Edan.
In a very real way every person, every household that we add to Edan will one day be another stateless family given a new home and another Christian saved from persecution. We can get there, we will get there.
St. Michael Archangel, defend us in battle....
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Jul 24, 2013
Motivation, Means, Ends, Propaganda,and Why Telling the Truth can be Evil
Recently a topic came up where a person who makes their living as a blogger reposted a propaganda film supposedly issued by the North Korean government. He was pointing out that the (rather long, as such things go) film seemed accurate in its assessment of American culture, especially pop culture. I objected to this for two reasons: first, the vapidity of pop culture is no secret; and second, this is actually assisting North Korea's propaganda.
At this point the writer, and others, disagreed stating (paraphrase) 'its true, so repeating it is OK,even good'. As I tried to explain why this is not the case the response was just a series of variations of 'but its true'. But does the fact that you are stating something that is true mean you are not performing or participating in an evil act?
Of course not!
Once more we must point out that just as you cannot separate means from ends you cannot separate motivation from means or ends. Robbing a bank to fund an orphanage is not a good act. Raising funds through charitable means for an orphanage is good, but doing so for the internal motivation of vanity is not. Quietly speaking to a friend about his gaffes during a speech and offering to coach him on public speaking is a good act; publicly mocking him and regaling others with tales of his failures is not a good act.
But how can repeating well-known things be improper? After all, 'defamation' traditionally means 'to harm another by revealing facts not generally known', not 'commonly known things'. Again, we must look at motivation, ends, and means. Let's use an example.
This is because of association and reputation. The journalists and such were doing good while the Nazis were doing evil. When you repeat the words of another in a direct manner you are associating your own reputation with their actions and words; you are basically giving your assent to not just the facts but also their motivations (if known), means and desired ends (if known). Whatever legitimacy, trust, or positive reputation you have is being imputed not just to the facts but also to the motivations (if known), means and desired ends (if known).
Indeed, this is one of the primary goals of propaganda - to tell the truth in such a way that it defames the enemies of the propagandists while also adding to the credibility and positive reputation of the propagandists by having others repeat it. This is why propaganda posters have eye-catching art, why propaganda fliers include attractive, humorous drawings, why propaganda songs are as 'catchy' as possible, and why propaganda speeches come from the mouths of professional orators.
And why propagandists engage in defamation as much as they do in slander and libel.
Luckily, the vast majority of such information in the world is just information; an encyclopedia has no motivation other than to present data and no desired ends other than presenting data - repeating such information has no moral dimension other than what the person repeating it gives it. But we must still be careful of what we repeat and why.
At this point the writer, and others, disagreed stating (paraphrase) 'its true, so repeating it is OK,even good'. As I tried to explain why this is not the case the response was just a series of variations of 'but its true'. But does the fact that you are stating something that is true mean you are not performing or participating in an evil act?
Of course not!
Once more we must point out that just as you cannot separate means from ends you cannot separate motivation from means or ends. Robbing a bank to fund an orphanage is not a good act. Raising funds through charitable means for an orphanage is good, but doing so for the internal motivation of vanity is not. Quietly speaking to a friend about his gaffes during a speech and offering to coach him on public speaking is a good act; publicly mocking him and regaling others with tales of his failures is not a good act.
But how can repeating well-known things be improper? After all, 'defamation' traditionally means 'to harm another by revealing facts not generally known', not 'commonly known things'. Again, we must look at motivation, ends, and means. Let's use an example.
In the 1930's various journalists, religious leaders, and others warned of the rise of organized crime in America. They discussed the influence and power of these criminal groups and urged others to oppose their bribery and threats to weaken them and return control to proper civil authority. In these cases we know their motivations (they stated what their motivations were - improvement of civil society - and confirmed it with their actions), we know their means (public discussion of facts and the presentations of strategies to oppose crime), and we know their desired ends (reduction in crime and lawlessness). Their use of the facts was good because their demonstrable motivations, means, and desired ends were neutral or good.Now we must speak of association and support. During the time period of the example people who repeated and spread the articles of journalists and activists about crime were seen as doing good by educating others while people who repeated the Nazi's articles about the same facts were seen as subversive and evil. Why? After all, even if the Nazis were enemies, they were right, weren't they? Members of the various National Socialist groups in the UK and USA weren't lying, were they? So why were they looked down on while others were winning civic awards for discussing the exact same facts?
At the same time the National Socialists of Germany were writing about how degenerate America was, pointing out that many of its urban areas were controlled by gangsters. They were speaking of the same facts as were the journalists and reformers in America - does this mean repeating the propaganda of the Nazis was good, or at worst neutral? After all, they were just telling the truth!
But we know the motivations of the Nazis (they told us they wished to undermine American society and weaken it, which their actions confirmed), we know their means (public disclosure of the facts), and their desired ends (the political and military defeat of the United States). So we can conclude that the Nazi's use of the very same facts was evil because their demonstrable motivations, means, and dersired ends were evil or neutral.
This is because of association and reputation. The journalists and such were doing good while the Nazis were doing evil. When you repeat the words of another in a direct manner you are associating your own reputation with their actions and words; you are basically giving your assent to not just the facts but also their motivations (if known), means and desired ends (if known). Whatever legitimacy, trust, or positive reputation you have is being imputed not just to the facts but also to the motivations (if known), means and desired ends (if known).
Indeed, this is one of the primary goals of propaganda - to tell the truth in such a way that it defames the enemies of the propagandists while also adding to the credibility and positive reputation of the propagandists by having others repeat it. This is why propaganda posters have eye-catching art, why propaganda fliers include attractive, humorous drawings, why propaganda songs are as 'catchy' as possible, and why propaganda speeches come from the mouths of professional orators.
And why propagandists engage in defamation as much as they do in slander and libel.
Luckily, the vast majority of such information in the world is just information; an encyclopedia has no motivation other than to present data and no desired ends other than presenting data - repeating such information has no moral dimension other than what the person repeating it gives it. But we must still be careful of what we repeat and why.
Jul 18, 2013
Non-Territorial Nations - What is Edan Doing?!
As explained with admirable efficiency by geographer Matt Rosenberg;
"While the terms country, state, and nation are often used interchangeably, there is a difference. A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country. A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State."
This is a bit more precise than common usage, actually. While we tend to use 'nation-state' as a shorthand this can be incorrect. Take Canada - there are at least two distinct Nations in Canada (one with a Protestant English culture and another with a Catholic French culture) so Canada is a State with multiple Nations within it. Great Britain is very similar - although Great Britain is obviously a state we all know who and what a Scotsman is, correct? Scotland, which has had no territorial control of its own for quite some time (and is thus not a State) is certainly a Nation. So obviously nations can exist without control of the territory they are in. But can a nation exist without any defined territory?
The Romani certainly think so. They announced a claim of being a Non-Territorial nation over a decade ago, a claim not just accepted by a number of academics, diplomats, and leaders but seen as a potential solution to a range of ethnic and minority issues. It can even be argued, as Elkins, Fischer, and a number of others have, that the Westphalian conceptualization of 'legitimate' States being strictly territorial has made ethnic and minority strife worse since land is a fixed asset - if you wish any sort of autonomy within the Westphalian model you must control and defend territory; all territory is already controlled and the closest to the oppressed group is most likely controlled by that group's oppressors; therefore the pressure towards violence is greatly increased. By rejecting the demand that 'legitimate' States control territory before they can engage in political, diplomatic, etc. activity you can reduce or even eliminate these pressures.
In his works the scholar Hassner argues that the Westphalian paradigm of the nation-state is obsolete because it cannot account for the tremendous impact of everything from transnational corporations to NGOs to Violent Non-State Actors such as Al-Qaeda. He also points to the ethnic strife of Africa as distinct Nations resort to large-scale violence to control territory rather than seeking non-territorial autonomy.
So Non-Territorial Nations are an existing fact, long predating modern concepts of nation-states; Non-Territorial Nations as well as Non-State Actors, NGO's, Transnational Corporations, etc. are all recognized as a major factor in world events; so Edan's status as a (so far) non-territorial sovereign nation is neither shocking nor even very remarkable. Considering that the most notable, recognizable Non-Territorial Nation is the Catholic Church (does anyone really believe Vatican City is truly in compliance with the various ideas of Westphalian territorial control?) and that the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is another key example of a Non-Territorial Nation with various forms of diplomatic recognition Edan's status as a Catholic Non-Territorial Nation is likewise unremarkable. Between the Roma, the Church, the SMOM, and dozens of other groups the idea of a sovereign non-territorial Catholic group is just not that shocking - except for a few things.
Which we will get to.
But why start with a non-territorial monarchy? Why not start Edan as an NGO, or a lobbying firm, or a credit union, or a charity? After all, the king is very clear that Edan needs all those things. Why not pick up the 'low-hanging fruit' and start as an incorporated not-for-profit charity and work your way up from there?
There are many very good, very worthy NGO's in the world already. There are very good Catholic credit unions, charities, and lobbying firms. But there are two things you aren't going to find that readily.
This goes back to the goals of Edan; our goals are not to build a better bank, nor to be an efficient charity; Edan was not founded to lobby the US for more aid to Mali nor to provide emergency relief after earthquakes. While all of those activities are a legitimate and even noble way to spend your energy, they are not what Edan is for.
Edan exists to be truly just for both its own citizens and as an example to others of what a just nation is.
One of the things that does distinguish Edan from the Church and from the SMOM is that it is new. Edan is not an anomaly from history, as some argue about the SMOM. It is not a unique situation as some argue about the Church. Edan is living proof that the desire of people to be free, to gather together, and to determine their own destiny can be met; it demonstrates that the Westphalian model and the violence it spawns are both failed artifacts of the Enlightenment; it shows the fatal flaws of Democracy and how to remove them; it exposes the false sichotomy in current economic thought with clear alternatives.
Edan is also not a religious power but rather a secular power. The Church and the SMOM are often dismissed as being 'religious' as if this reduced their diplomatic or cultural relevance. Edan is a Nation, pure and simple, and cannot be dismissed similarly.
And Edan is not based upon ethnic or racial criteria. One is born a Romani or, perhaps, marries into a Romani family; people who are not born Navajo cannot become Navajo. Edan is not organized like this; while it has its own culture and identity, these are not based upon genetic heritage, making Edan universal, not racial.
We are, yes, building a better country both for ourselves and for others to see that it can be done.
Jul 8, 2013
The Declaration of Independence - A Failed Justification for Perfidy, Treason, and Terrorism
America just celebrated its 4th of July this past week, a holiday which, I must admit, is fun to watch. It does fill me with sadness to know how little Americans know of their own holiday and the origins of their own country. Today, after a pause to avoid direct offense of Americans too close to their national holiday, I wish to examine their Declaration of Independence and the history around it.
The American colonists had greatly helped precipitate the Seven Years War, a global conflict that resulted in Great Britain incurring massive debt and greatly straining relations with the Native Americans. In an effort to both rebuild relations with the Native Americans and to curb the tensions (mainly about fur trading and such) that led to the Seven Years War the King forbade colonists from settling the Ohio Country.
This did not sit well with a number of prominent colonists who had invested heavily in expanded trade in the Ohio Country. Indeed, this profit-seeking is what had led to the armed conflicts with French forces in French territory which triggered the Seven Years War! Another thing which many colonists despised was paying taxes, even though these taxes had been levied to cover the costs of the war which they triggered and which was largely fought on their behalf. Be that as it may, the Colonists struggled to avoid all taxes and duties and began to resort to smugglers for many staples.
The Colonies had long been a hotbed of lawlessness and they soon elevated criminals to a position of local prominence. John Hancock was a notorious smuggler and scofflaw. When he was arrested for smuggling riots broke out amongst the colonists who agitated for his freedom so they could continue to receive their illegal goods! When the British government determined a way to provide high-quality tea (a major item in the colonies) at a price even lower than smuggled tea while still earning money for the government. The response? Hancock funded an attack that dumped this low-cost, high-quality tea into the harbor so that colonists would be forced to purchase his more-expensive, less-quality tea. How did the colonists respond to this criminal-funded terrorist act that was aimed at fleecing them? They still celebrate the Boston Tea Party, as they call it, as a blow for freedom!
Hancock was involved with the creation of the Declaration, as was Benjamin Franklin (a philanderer, scofflaw, and con man who notoriously took the King's pay to inform Parliament and the Crown of the mood of the colonies then played both sides against each other for his own gain) and a number of other smugglers, tax evaders, and general renegades. But the selection of Thomas Jefferson to actually write the document was a perfect example of the corrupt nature of the group involved and the lionization of Jefferson by Americans to this very day is astonishing.
In the colonies living beyond your means was common but Jefferson took it to heights that even his contemporaries found amazing. Despite having a large, productive plantation Jefferson was perpetually buried under the debt incurred by his lavish spending on food, wine, clothes, and perpetual building projects. Despite taking a full 5th of the endowment of a college where he was trustee he still left behind so much debt his heirs were forced to sell the bulk of his estate to cover his outstanding loans and bills.
But how did these smugglers, tax evaders, con men, and other reprobates convince others, usually common men, to fight for them and their wealth?
Those not already on board through greed were recruited by lies and bigotry.
The Seven Years War had had a lot to do with French territory west of the Appalachians. After the war Britain now controlled that territory as well as formerly French Quebec. The Native Americans of the Ohio Valley had much better relations with the French of Quebec and were more hostile to the colonists to the East. The newly-conquered Quebecois maintained their relations with the Ohio Country. Further, many of the native leaders of the Ohio Country had rather mixed views of who controlled their territory. To maintain the peace, build better relations with the native rulers and mollify the conquered French of Quebec the King of England sensibly gave the Quebecois control of the Ohio Country and relations with the natives.
The leaders of the American Revolution cast this as the prelude to - Catholics! Yes, many of the Founding Fathers blatantly used a fear of Catholics settling in the Ohio Country to whip up anti-British fervor with Paul revere drawing a cartoon showing the treaty that gave Quebec authority over the Ohio Country being co-signed by Catholic bishops and the Devil.
Combined with such events as the Boston Massacre (where soldiers fired on an armed mob that was assaulting them but which the revolutionaries portrayed as an unprovoked attack) some colonists were ready to rebel against their own king. The Declaration of Independence was meant to be the paper that justified what was to happen next - treason.
It fails.
The Declaration of Independence is singularly bad at what it purports to do, justify treason. Indeed, I have never understood why anyone who has read it thinks Jefferson is a good writer (there is a difference between 'florid' and 'good').
The opening is wordy but weak, essentially just an overly-long statement that the Declaration will explain why the colonies are justified in committing treason. His statement of basic rights is rather terse, considering the lead in, and unconvincing. And his contractual theory of government makes no sense - after all, the majority of colonists wished to remain subject tot he British Crown! If he truly believes in a contractual governmental theory this is just silly.
Jefferson then goes on to admit that treason is bad and that any rebellion must be well-justified with about 200 words when 20 would do.
And then the whining begins.
Jefferson then lists reasons he thinks the King is a terrible, no-good, very bad tyrant:
1) He vetoes laws. Well, under the parliamentarian system of the day, the King could, yes, veto laws
2) The King doesn't rubber stamp what the colonial leaders want. well, why should he? The colonies were under Royal charter and needed the King's assent to enact their own local rules. If the King declined it was no different than in Britain with the Parliament!
3) The King continues to treat colonies differently than parliamentary districts in England. Of course he does, they are different things. Indeed, originally the colonists were eager to be different because that meant they would have lower taxes!
4) I don't like where the King calls parliament and other such groups. Really? 'It is far' is a pro-treason argument?
5) He dissolves our local legislative groups when they refuse to enforce the law. I think this is one of the funnier complaints. Why? Well, it shows that even if the colonies didn't have seats in Parliament they did have local version of Parliament (which is also admitted above, twice) and that these could pass laws with the King's consent (again, already admitted) and that they had refused to obey the King's alw, so they had at least some authority. In other words, some of the complaints in the Declaration nullify many of the other complaints. "We don't have access to Parliament!' vs. 'He won't let our local Parliaments do whatever they want!'.
6) When the local legislatures refuse to enforce the King's laws he doesn't let us create another legislature just like it right away. Well, why would he? If the local legislature keeps being run by crooks, smugglers, and rebels why would he let them return to power?
7) The King is controlling immigration and territorial expansion. So the King is controlling access to and the growth of his colonies? How dare he! I mean, its not like we just had a massive war on 4 continents about improper territorial expansion! Oh,we did? well, so what! We want to do whatever we want anyway!
8) The King won't let us have our own judges. Well, considering the local legislatures are refusing to enforce the King's laws why would he expect local judges to be any better? I;d keep sending in judges I trust from home, too!
9) The King is in control of the tenure and pay of his judges. So the fact that the King's judges report to and are paid by the King is an issue? Why? And how is it different from 8, 6, 2, and 1, anyway?
10) The King has sent tax collectors, customs agents, and other people to enforce the laws we refuse to enforce. Of course he did! What else should he do?
11) The King has soldiers in the colonies even though the local legislatures don't want them here. First, Jefferson is again admitting that the colonies have local legislatures, obviating a lot of the whining about seats in parliament. Second, the colonies are on the edge of a vast wilderness full of hostile groups and they just finished fighting a massive war. Third, since some colonists are openly urging armed rebellion, what do you expect?
12) The military answers to the King, not the local legislatures. You mean the local legislatures that refuse to enforce the King's laws? The same ones that started the Seven Years War with colonial forces attacking French troops from ambush?
13) Our local legislatures can't override Parliament. OK, this gives a little more weight to complaints about 'no seats in parliament', but why would colonies expect anything different than this?
14) The King has soldiers here. Yeah, we heard you when you said that in 11.
15) Soldiers are subject to the King and British law and Judges, not local laws and judges. Well, of course they are! And after the fiasco of the Boston Massacre, who can blame them?
16) We can't trade with whomever we want. You are British trade colonies founded and protected at great cost to create trade with and for Britain. We know from the Seven Years War that the colonists had no trouble trading with the French during a war with the French started by the colonies, but that doesn't make it right.
17) We don't like paying taxes. Who does? But that war you started isn't going to pay for itself! And remember that bit about how the colonies were founded by the King at great expense?
18) Some trials aren't with a jury. OK - but how many? Are they a particular type, like contract disputes that are usually clear and a jury is only a chance for the guilty to emotionally sway other people? And is this a reason to commit treason?
18) Sometimes we are put on trial in England. England is the source of sovereignty and the place of superior courts, so why is this a surprise?
19) We don't like Quebec. Quebec was just conquered and is formerly French - of course it has slightly different laws than a British colony!
20) The King doesn't let us do whatever we want. I am unsure how many different ways he can ineffectually restate this same complaint.
21) The King doesn't let us do whatever we want. At least once more!
22) When we really, really refuse to obey the King;s laws he sends in soldiers. Jefferson keeps coming back to just a few points and repeats them in different ways over and over without making a real point.
23) He is putting down armed rebellion with force. Not a surprise, really, and I wouldn't expect any less.
24) He plans to continue to put down armed rebellion with force. See point 23.
25) Some British colonists are pressed into service to fight other British colonists who are in armed rebellion against the King. See point 23, again.
26) We are being attacked by loyalists and Native Americans, and the Native Americans are scary. In regards to the loyalists, see point 23 yet again. And as for Native Americans, how is that justification for treason?
27) We have been nice so far and the King has been mean. Remember, the Sons of Liberty would routinely tar and feather the King's agents (being tarred and feathered usually killed the target, if you didn't know that) and others they would outright lynch. The Boston Massacre was incited by the Sons of Liberty bringing in hundreds of armed men to attack soldiers. the Boston Tea Party was the agents of smugglers destroying government property to force people to resort to smuggled goods. If vandalism, riots, assault, terror, arson, and outright murder are "Petitions for Redress in the most humble terms" I have no idea what Jefferson considers violent!
28) No matter how much we threatened the King he still insisted on his laws being enforced in his colonies. I don't know why I would need to point out the issues with this.
Jefferson then concludes with a statement that God is on the side of the murderous, seditious, tax-evading, scofflaw traitors.
The Declaration obviously fails in its attempts to justify treason and war. With its rambling style and muddled statements I am also puzzled as to why anyone thought it an elegant document.
The American colonists had greatly helped precipitate the Seven Years War, a global conflict that resulted in Great Britain incurring massive debt and greatly straining relations with the Native Americans. In an effort to both rebuild relations with the Native Americans and to curb the tensions (mainly about fur trading and such) that led to the Seven Years War the King forbade colonists from settling the Ohio Country.
This did not sit well with a number of prominent colonists who had invested heavily in expanded trade in the Ohio Country. Indeed, this profit-seeking is what had led to the armed conflicts with French forces in French territory which triggered the Seven Years War! Another thing which many colonists despised was paying taxes, even though these taxes had been levied to cover the costs of the war which they triggered and which was largely fought on their behalf. Be that as it may, the Colonists struggled to avoid all taxes and duties and began to resort to smugglers for many staples.
The Colonies had long been a hotbed of lawlessness and they soon elevated criminals to a position of local prominence. John Hancock was a notorious smuggler and scofflaw. When he was arrested for smuggling riots broke out amongst the colonists who agitated for his freedom so they could continue to receive their illegal goods! When the British government determined a way to provide high-quality tea (a major item in the colonies) at a price even lower than smuggled tea while still earning money for the government. The response? Hancock funded an attack that dumped this low-cost, high-quality tea into the harbor so that colonists would be forced to purchase his more-expensive, less-quality tea. How did the colonists respond to this criminal-funded terrorist act that was aimed at fleecing them? They still celebrate the Boston Tea Party, as they call it, as a blow for freedom!
Hancock was involved with the creation of the Declaration, as was Benjamin Franklin (a philanderer, scofflaw, and con man who notoriously took the King's pay to inform Parliament and the Crown of the mood of the colonies then played both sides against each other for his own gain) and a number of other smugglers, tax evaders, and general renegades. But the selection of Thomas Jefferson to actually write the document was a perfect example of the corrupt nature of the group involved and the lionization of Jefferson by Americans to this very day is astonishing.
In the colonies living beyond your means was common but Jefferson took it to heights that even his contemporaries found amazing. Despite having a large, productive plantation Jefferson was perpetually buried under the debt incurred by his lavish spending on food, wine, clothes, and perpetual building projects. Despite taking a full 5th of the endowment of a college where he was trustee he still left behind so much debt his heirs were forced to sell the bulk of his estate to cover his outstanding loans and bills.
But how did these smugglers, tax evaders, con men, and other reprobates convince others, usually common men, to fight for them and their wealth?
Those not already on board through greed were recruited by lies and bigotry.
The Seven Years War had had a lot to do with French territory west of the Appalachians. After the war Britain now controlled that territory as well as formerly French Quebec. The Native Americans of the Ohio Valley had much better relations with the French of Quebec and were more hostile to the colonists to the East. The newly-conquered Quebecois maintained their relations with the Ohio Country. Further, many of the native leaders of the Ohio Country had rather mixed views of who controlled their territory. To maintain the peace, build better relations with the native rulers and mollify the conquered French of Quebec the King of England sensibly gave the Quebecois control of the Ohio Country and relations with the natives.
The leaders of the American Revolution cast this as the prelude to - Catholics! Yes, many of the Founding Fathers blatantly used a fear of Catholics settling in the Ohio Country to whip up anti-British fervor with Paul revere drawing a cartoon showing the treaty that gave Quebec authority over the Ohio Country being co-signed by Catholic bishops and the Devil.
Combined with such events as the Boston Massacre (where soldiers fired on an armed mob that was assaulting them but which the revolutionaries portrayed as an unprovoked attack) some colonists were ready to rebel against their own king. The Declaration of Independence was meant to be the paper that justified what was to happen next - treason.
It fails.
The Declaration of Independence is singularly bad at what it purports to do, justify treason. Indeed, I have never understood why anyone who has read it thinks Jefferson is a good writer (there is a difference between 'florid' and 'good').
The opening is wordy but weak, essentially just an overly-long statement that the Declaration will explain why the colonies are justified in committing treason. His statement of basic rights is rather terse, considering the lead in, and unconvincing. And his contractual theory of government makes no sense - after all, the majority of colonists wished to remain subject tot he British Crown! If he truly believes in a contractual governmental theory this is just silly.
Jefferson then goes on to admit that treason is bad and that any rebellion must be well-justified with about 200 words when 20 would do.
And then the whining begins.
Jefferson then lists reasons he thinks the King is a terrible, no-good, very bad tyrant:
1) He vetoes laws. Well, under the parliamentarian system of the day, the King could, yes, veto laws
2) The King doesn't rubber stamp what the colonial leaders want. well, why should he? The colonies were under Royal charter and needed the King's assent to enact their own local rules. If the King declined it was no different than in Britain with the Parliament!
3) The King continues to treat colonies differently than parliamentary districts in England. Of course he does, they are different things. Indeed, originally the colonists were eager to be different because that meant they would have lower taxes!
4) I don't like where the King calls parliament and other such groups. Really? 'It is far' is a pro-treason argument?
5) He dissolves our local legislative groups when they refuse to enforce the law. I think this is one of the funnier complaints. Why? Well, it shows that even if the colonies didn't have seats in Parliament they did have local version of Parliament (which is also admitted above, twice) and that these could pass laws with the King's consent (again, already admitted) and that they had refused to obey the King's alw, so they had at least some authority. In other words, some of the complaints in the Declaration nullify many of the other complaints. "We don't have access to Parliament!' vs. 'He won't let our local Parliaments do whatever they want!'.
6) When the local legislatures refuse to enforce the King's laws he doesn't let us create another legislature just like it right away. Well, why would he? If the local legislature keeps being run by crooks, smugglers, and rebels why would he let them return to power?
7) The King is controlling immigration and territorial expansion. So the King is controlling access to and the growth of his colonies? How dare he! I mean, its not like we just had a massive war on 4 continents about improper territorial expansion! Oh,we did? well, so what! We want to do whatever we want anyway!
8) The King won't let us have our own judges. Well, considering the local legislatures are refusing to enforce the King's laws why would he expect local judges to be any better? I;d keep sending in judges I trust from home, too!
9) The King is in control of the tenure and pay of his judges. So the fact that the King's judges report to and are paid by the King is an issue? Why? And how is it different from 8, 6, 2, and 1, anyway?
10) The King has sent tax collectors, customs agents, and other people to enforce the laws we refuse to enforce. Of course he did! What else should he do?
11) The King has soldiers in the colonies even though the local legislatures don't want them here. First, Jefferson is again admitting that the colonies have local legislatures, obviating a lot of the whining about seats in parliament. Second, the colonies are on the edge of a vast wilderness full of hostile groups and they just finished fighting a massive war. Third, since some colonists are openly urging armed rebellion, what do you expect?
12) The military answers to the King, not the local legislatures. You mean the local legislatures that refuse to enforce the King's laws? The same ones that started the Seven Years War with colonial forces attacking French troops from ambush?
13) Our local legislatures can't override Parliament. OK, this gives a little more weight to complaints about 'no seats in parliament', but why would colonies expect anything different than this?
14) The King has soldiers here. Yeah, we heard you when you said that in 11.
15) Soldiers are subject to the King and British law and Judges, not local laws and judges. Well, of course they are! And after the fiasco of the Boston Massacre, who can blame them?
16) We can't trade with whomever we want. You are British trade colonies founded and protected at great cost to create trade with and for Britain. We know from the Seven Years War that the colonists had no trouble trading with the French during a war with the French started by the colonies, but that doesn't make it right.
17) We don't like paying taxes. Who does? But that war you started isn't going to pay for itself! And remember that bit about how the colonies were founded by the King at great expense?
18) Some trials aren't with a jury. OK - but how many? Are they a particular type, like contract disputes that are usually clear and a jury is only a chance for the guilty to emotionally sway other people? And is this a reason to commit treason?
18) Sometimes we are put on trial in England. England is the source of sovereignty and the place of superior courts, so why is this a surprise?
19) We don't like Quebec. Quebec was just conquered and is formerly French - of course it has slightly different laws than a British colony!
20) The King doesn't let us do whatever we want. I am unsure how many different ways he can ineffectually restate this same complaint.
21) The King doesn't let us do whatever we want. At least once more!
22) When we really, really refuse to obey the King;s laws he sends in soldiers. Jefferson keeps coming back to just a few points and repeats them in different ways over and over without making a real point.
23) He is putting down armed rebellion with force. Not a surprise, really, and I wouldn't expect any less.
24) He plans to continue to put down armed rebellion with force. See point 23.
25) Some British colonists are pressed into service to fight other British colonists who are in armed rebellion against the King. See point 23, again.
26) We are being attacked by loyalists and Native Americans, and the Native Americans are scary. In regards to the loyalists, see point 23 yet again. And as for Native Americans, how is that justification for treason?
27) We have been nice so far and the King has been mean. Remember, the Sons of Liberty would routinely tar and feather the King's agents (being tarred and feathered usually killed the target, if you didn't know that) and others they would outright lynch. The Boston Massacre was incited by the Sons of Liberty bringing in hundreds of armed men to attack soldiers. the Boston Tea Party was the agents of smugglers destroying government property to force people to resort to smuggled goods. If vandalism, riots, assault, terror, arson, and outright murder are "Petitions for Redress in the most humble terms" I have no idea what Jefferson considers violent!
28) No matter how much we threatened the King he still insisted on his laws being enforced in his colonies. I don't know why I would need to point out the issues with this.
Jefferson then concludes with a statement that God is on the side of the murderous, seditious, tax-evading, scofflaw traitors.
The Declaration obviously fails in its attempts to justify treason and war. With its rambling style and muddled statements I am also puzzled as to why anyone thought it an elegant document.
Apr 30, 2012
An Essay from HRM Jennifer on Voting and Society
One of the seemingly shocking things
about the Edanian constitution is the lack of women's suffrage. King
Richard is fond of noting that it was actually his Queen who
initially insisted that women should not have the right to vote in
Edan. This statement is often met with disbelief, but in this, my
first essay as Queen, I am pleased to confirm King Richard's
remarks.
As I address some of the reasons behind my exhortations and the decisions of our King as he developed the constitution, please remember that we are speaking only of Edan. I make no assertions or assumptions about women's suffrage in America or anywhere else in our current world. Many things unique to the culture we hope to build in Edan make the lack of women's voting sensible and just in our micronation, but we do not speak for situations and cultures outside of our own.
Let me make clear that in our micronation, the limits placed upon the Edanian vote in no way impede women's dignity, human rights, or freedoms. As Edanians, and Catholics, we believe in the inherent dignity of all human beings, male and female, from conception to natural death. But the modern assumption that being equal means being the same is a fallacy that we Edanians must recognize as the evil it is.
First of all, let us remember that Edan is a constitutional monarchy. We are governed by a King who is not elected, and our local rulers are appointed by our King, not by vote. We do have an elected Senate, but the duties of these elected officials are to guarantee that the common people will always have a voice, even in the event of a tyrant or a calcified aristocracy. In fact, much of the Edanian constitution is devoted to limiting the power of elected officials while maintaining some general public forum to protect our future from being diminished or destroyed by one mad or corrupt King. So we must remember in this discussion of suffrage that an Edanian vote is not central to our governance, unlike the modern capitalistic or socialist democracies we are accustomed to.
But history has shown us that in all democracies, eventually a vote becomes something that can be bought. Bought by wealth or bought by charisma or even bought by something more nefarious, it is still subject to coercion, whether conscious or not. When every citizen has the right to vote, suddenly an entire society and culture can be bought (and made bankrupt). Or, even more frighteningly, as we see in the bipartisan America, a vote becomes "us vs. them" and true debate and progress are stifled. We believe that if we allow the voice of women in Edan to remain pure and unsullied by political infighting and the lures of coercion, Edan will have an unparalleled asset. Culturally, we will promote the ideal of a strong woman's voice, and women will be encouraged to enter into political debate and even run for office (note that in Edan, while women cannot vote, there is no restriction on women holding elected office). Knowing that we will have a chorus of individuals whose vote cannot be bought means that the ideas they put forth will have more merit, more weight, and will provide a needed balance to the necessary political wrangling that comes from the voting process.
In addition, we believe that it is important that the voting class knows that their vote isn't just a vote for themselves, but also a vote for their wives, daughters, mothers, and grandmothers. Even the seemingly-unfair limitation on single women will be balanced by the actions of responsible single men. In this way, a vote will not be simply a one to one trade, my vote for whatever will be given to me. A vote will become more precious and more meaningful and more forward-thinking, rather than a selfish choice based upon immediate desires. Thus, the voter will be less susceptible to the political pressures and frustrations that unfortunately prevail in the world of universal suffrage.
But why is it that women do not have the right to vote, rather than men? Because it is natural that women be the voice of reason in society, as a women's inherent nature recognizes relationship more fully. Whether mothers in fact or not, a woman's physiology and psychology are ordered toward motherhood. This allows women to see differently than a man. As Blessed John Paul II said in MULIERIS DIGNITATEM, "Motherhood involves a special communion with the mystery of life, as it develops in the woman's womb. The mother is filled with wonder at this mystery of life, and "understands" with unique intuition what is happening inside her. In the light of the "beginning", the mother accepts and loves as a person the child she is carrying in her womb. This unique contact with the new human being developing within her gives rise to an attitude towards human beings - not only towards her own child, but every human being - which profoundly marks the woman's personality. It is commonly thought that women are more capable than men of paying attention to another person, and that motherhood develops this predisposition even more." By ensuring that the voices of women cannot be purchased or influenced by those seeking her vote, Edan will be blessed with a class of women who not only have the natural attendance to relationship that allows them to more clearly see the impact of society's choices, but also can speak freely about what they see as right and just because they are not susceptible to voting pressures. In contrast, the masculine hormones and physical strength indicate that men are physiologically and psychologically more suited to the direct wielding of authority and dealing with harsh politics. By working within our God-given natures, society will benefit from the best that men and women have to offer.
As I have shown, the thought behind the lack of women's suffrage in Edan is not one of restriction upon, or lack of respect for women. Quite the opposite, it is the elevation of the feminine voice to one that is truly meaningful, and can contribute to all of our society, rather than be reduced to simply another button to be pushed in the voting booth.
As I address some of the reasons behind my exhortations and the decisions of our King as he developed the constitution, please remember that we are speaking only of Edan. I make no assertions or assumptions about women's suffrage in America or anywhere else in our current world. Many things unique to the culture we hope to build in Edan make the lack of women's voting sensible and just in our micronation, but we do not speak for situations and cultures outside of our own.
Let me make clear that in our micronation, the limits placed upon the Edanian vote in no way impede women's dignity, human rights, or freedoms. As Edanians, and Catholics, we believe in the inherent dignity of all human beings, male and female, from conception to natural death. But the modern assumption that being equal means being the same is a fallacy that we Edanians must recognize as the evil it is.
First of all, let us remember that Edan is a constitutional monarchy. We are governed by a King who is not elected, and our local rulers are appointed by our King, not by vote. We do have an elected Senate, but the duties of these elected officials are to guarantee that the common people will always have a voice, even in the event of a tyrant or a calcified aristocracy. In fact, much of the Edanian constitution is devoted to limiting the power of elected officials while maintaining some general public forum to protect our future from being diminished or destroyed by one mad or corrupt King. So we must remember in this discussion of suffrage that an Edanian vote is not central to our governance, unlike the modern capitalistic or socialist democracies we are accustomed to.
But history has shown us that in all democracies, eventually a vote becomes something that can be bought. Bought by wealth or bought by charisma or even bought by something more nefarious, it is still subject to coercion, whether conscious or not. When every citizen has the right to vote, suddenly an entire society and culture can be bought (and made bankrupt). Or, even more frighteningly, as we see in the bipartisan America, a vote becomes "us vs. them" and true debate and progress are stifled. We believe that if we allow the voice of women in Edan to remain pure and unsullied by political infighting and the lures of coercion, Edan will have an unparalleled asset. Culturally, we will promote the ideal of a strong woman's voice, and women will be encouraged to enter into political debate and even run for office (note that in Edan, while women cannot vote, there is no restriction on women holding elected office). Knowing that we will have a chorus of individuals whose vote cannot be bought means that the ideas they put forth will have more merit, more weight, and will provide a needed balance to the necessary political wrangling that comes from the voting process.
In addition, we believe that it is important that the voting class knows that their vote isn't just a vote for themselves, but also a vote for their wives, daughters, mothers, and grandmothers. Even the seemingly-unfair limitation on single women will be balanced by the actions of responsible single men. In this way, a vote will not be simply a one to one trade, my vote for whatever will be given to me. A vote will become more precious and more meaningful and more forward-thinking, rather than a selfish choice based upon immediate desires. Thus, the voter will be less susceptible to the political pressures and frustrations that unfortunately prevail in the world of universal suffrage.
But why is it that women do not have the right to vote, rather than men? Because it is natural that women be the voice of reason in society, as a women's inherent nature recognizes relationship more fully. Whether mothers in fact or not, a woman's physiology and psychology are ordered toward motherhood. This allows women to see differently than a man. As Blessed John Paul II said in MULIERIS DIGNITATEM, "Motherhood involves a special communion with the mystery of life, as it develops in the woman's womb. The mother is filled with wonder at this mystery of life, and "understands" with unique intuition what is happening inside her. In the light of the "beginning", the mother accepts and loves as a person the child she is carrying in her womb. This unique contact with the new human being developing within her gives rise to an attitude towards human beings - not only towards her own child, but every human being - which profoundly marks the woman's personality. It is commonly thought that women are more capable than men of paying attention to another person, and that motherhood develops this predisposition even more." By ensuring that the voices of women cannot be purchased or influenced by those seeking her vote, Edan will be blessed with a class of women who not only have the natural attendance to relationship that allows them to more clearly see the impact of society's choices, but also can speak freely about what they see as right and just because they are not susceptible to voting pressures. In contrast, the masculine hormones and physical strength indicate that men are physiologically and psychologically more suited to the direct wielding of authority and dealing with harsh politics. By working within our God-given natures, society will benefit from the best that men and women have to offer.
As I have shown, the thought behind the lack of women's suffrage in Edan is not one of restriction upon, or lack of respect for women. Quite the opposite, it is the elevation of the feminine voice to one that is truly meaningful, and can contribute to all of our society, rather than be reduced to simply another button to be pushed in the voting booth.
Jul 5, 2007
Edan as a Catholic Nation
The decision to make Edan an explicitly Catholic nation was, in the end, rather an easy one. The old adage that “important things are simple, and simple things are hard” is, in my experience, very true. The goal of Edan is simple – create a governmental structure that allows its citizens the greatest possible benefit. This, of course, leads to a very great deal of follow-on issues. Who are the citizens? What benefits can a government grant? What benefits are possible, but undesirable? What do you mean, specifically, by ‘benefit’? Is ‘greatest possible’ meant in Utilitarian terms?
This goes on for a time, of course.
The starting point for the theory behind Edan is that the bare minimum of a government is that it be stable. A good government that collapses over and over (or once and for all) is not very good. That is why I focused upon Monarchy as the essential basis for a stable government. Throughout history, monarchies have lasted longer and been more stable than other forms of government. Personally, I believe that the most important of the many reasons for this is that monarch plan for the long-term; their own lifetime and the lifetime of their heirs. This long view is in stark contrast with the narrow, immediate focus of republics, democracies, and other forms of government that routinely change leaders. Monarchs throughout history have begun public works projects to improve their nations and the lives of their citizens that would only be completed long after their own deaths. An American president, for a contrasting example, is praised if he proposes a plan that is longer than 4 years!
“Impartiality and continuity are important aspects of government, and it is doubtful whether any form of democratic government yet discovered provides these to any greater extent than does constitutional monarchy.”
- Sydney Bailey
Of course, the
“I am personally still convinced that there are safeguards in the constitutional monarchy that an elected head of state just would not possess.”
-Roger Scott, British MP
Therefore, the first draft of the Constitution of Edan was very obviously based upon the modern Western idea of a constitutional monarchy. But it was merely an echo of systems that are largely failing. Socialism is annihilating the rights and economic opportunity of the people of
Turning to history once more, I realized that there is one institution that has outlasted even the best of nations – the Catholic Church. The faltering
The Catholic Church, with its comprehensive and explicit views on social justice and the proper role of government, would be the touchstone of justice and morality for the Kingdom.
There it is; the evolution of Edan into a Catholic nation in rather short order. But this also led me to realize that Edan must avoid the pitfalls that modern
“Monarchy is the one system of government where power is exercised for the good of all.”
- Aristotle
Jun 26, 2007
The Second Draft of the Constitution
After I ended the Kingdom's web presence in early 2001 I continued to work on theory and speak with other citizens and interested people, especially S.T.L. of the now-defunct States of Lassaira. This led to a major edit of the Constitution, also in early 2001. Unfortunately, serious illness reared its head and I had to put aside the Constitution for a while.
I will begin to show the new Constitution of 2001, but only to contrast the elements that were seriously changed from the first draft.
I will begin to show the new Constitution of 2001, but only to contrast the elements that were seriously changed from the first draft.
The Basic Theory behind Edan, plus a little history
The
The UNPO is a group that represents nations and peoples that are not recognized by the UN or most other international organizations. There are currently almost 70 members of the UNPO, including
There is some attempt to draw a difference between a state, a nation, and a nation-state. This is very, very understandable; scientists, even social scientists, want to be able to label and describe what they are studying in concrete terms. Unfortunately, the idea of ‘nation’ is too slippery and fuzzy for this to work. The
Again, it is very clear that a country is whatever people agree it is. This sort of “Tinkerbell Effect” (if enough people believe it, it is real) has always been the case when it comes to the definition of a nation.
Being largely aware of all this in the 1990’s, I was interested in the rapid creation of literally dozens of ‘new’ countries in that decade. All over the world, people were striving to define themselves in smaller and smaller countries.
The development of very large, centralized nations is really a modern one. Sure,
The explosion of new, smaller nations in the 1990’s was, I believe, caused by the confluence of a desire for smaller, direct, personal government and rapid political change. People saw an opportunity to create a nation-state that they wanted and seized it. Unfortunately, these attempts sometimes meant terrible violence and death.
The world is currently undergoing as drastic a change as what was seen in the 17th and 18th Centuries (that led to the rise of the modern nation-state) or in the 11th (the beginning of the Great Kingdoms) or even in the 6th (the rise of feudalism). While not all great changes lead to new forms of government, I think that the continued development of new nations shows that this trend will continue. As the most “mature” (and post-industrial) nations of the West are pinning their hopes on ever-larger trans-national organizations like the UN, EU, G8, etc. the average citizen wants a
Further, the socio-economic underpinnings of the modern nation-state are beginning to fray. The Second Demographic Transition could very well signal the end of social welfare programs throughout the world within the next 50 years, an event that could bankrupt the wealthiest nations in history in just a few decades. Even without the collapse of social programs (i.e., all nations simply cancel them before their economies collapse) modern international economics is based upon perpetual growth – this is untenable in a world with a shrinking population.
In the end it boils down to something simple; people like to know their fellow citizens and they like to know their leaders. French theorist Pierre Manent argues that the lure of totalitarianism is that it provides the feeling that leaders are well-known to citizens individually and that those leaders share the values of the people. In other words, in the modern world tyrants seize power by using populism to create the illusions of a smaller, more intimate nation.
These facts and theories led to my conception of the
The first thing I am doing with this blog is to go over how I revised the constitution in the face of more research, thought, and discussion with others. When I finish with recounting the last, oh, eight years of development of the constitution, I hope to move on to the final version right here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)