Statelessness, Persecution, and More on the Origins of Edan

  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....

Shopping for Nations - a short entry

[mild edits have been made]
  The king has been approached by various people, both directly and indirectly, in recent weeks asking to discuss the nascent idea of 'neoreaction'. The king has been aware of this small movement for some time and was even a correspondent with one of the founders many years ago.The recent discussions have centered around the idea of a 'free market of governments' where many small governments compete for citizens allowing the free market to decide which is 'best'.
  Edan rejects the vary notion as flawed. First, free market economics are an inherently Liberal idea; free market Capitalism is focused on individual freedom, the lack of loyalty, and rejects the notion that ethics should or even can be involved in economics; if free markets produce a moral or ethical "winner" this is entirely accidental; such a 'market' largely exists now and is not producing very solid results.
  Yes, Democracy is a system which is proven too flawed to continue very long; yes, the Westphalian conceptualization of a nation-state is too flawed to withstand close scrutiny. The king is a supporter of people rejecting what is for what should be.
  But that decision is not an economic one!
  There is a famous American quote,
  "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"
  The first part directly addresses the neoreaction concept - a nation is not a provider of products or services. To view the government of your nation as if it were a roofer or concierge is to view the world solely as a mass of economic transactions. This idea is Modernist, Liberal, and wrong.
  But the second part is wrong - citizens are not servants. Nor are they employees, nor shareholders, nor co-owners. This idea is Liberal, Modernist, and wrong.
  Just as governments are not manufacturers or service providers, citizens are not employees or consumers!
  Families do not exist to support the government, the government exists to support families. And under the concepts core to Edan [solidarity, subsidiarity, and justice] the government is in a real way an extension of the family. There are real bonds of honor, duty, and of caritas between and amongst the citizens, nobles, and king of Edan.
  Honor, duty, loyalty, family, king, country - these things cannot be bought and sold.
  Leaving the faltering secular humanist Democracies of the world is something the king encourages all people to do. But do not choose Edan in hopes that it will give you good financial returns, nor for its low taxes, nor for its longevity and success. Join us because you will be treated with honor, with loyalty, and with  caritas. Join us because our goals are just. Join us because you believe in Edan.

The Truly Lost

  I had an interesting encounter yesterday, one that was illuminating while failing to be enjoyable. The Kingdom is not as active on social media as we are told we 'should' be, but from time to time I will spend some energy on twitter. Yesterday I made a rather tangental reply to the tweet of a young Catholic lady. It turned out that each of us had been unclear (I blame the terse format) and off we went.
  But others, followers of the young lady, were incensed by my statement. Three young men in general, one of them in particular, were very openly angry about my statement. Despite my attempts to point out that they had made the same error as the young lady I was replying to, thus their emotions were based on a misapprehension, they grew more and more angry. Slurs, curses, and vile invective of all sorts spewed forth as this young man worked himself into a lather.
  He accused me of wishing to grind others (particularly children!) under the boot heel of tyranny; that I am a power-mad dictator in waiting, eager to oppress and enslave the entire world in my mad thirst for conquest. In between curses he also threw in such epithets as 'tyrant' and 'big government stooge' but the slur he obviously felt was the most powerful and dirtiest thing he could call me was 'statist'.
  By now you are probably making assumptions about the topic in discussion. Was he furious at me for being a Monarchist? No. Was it that I am a king? No. Was it my rejection of Democracy? No. Was it the structure or nature of Edan? No.Was it about Edan being officially Catholic? No. Was it the most common topic of outrage from outsiders, that women do not get the vote in Edan? No.
  This young man was full of rage because he mistakenly thought I advocate for a requirement that children have a permit for lemonade stands.
  Yes, his fury was about food safety permits for children. I had mistakenly thought the young lady was speaking about professional (adult) vendors and she mistakenly thought I was discussing children in their own family's yards. Regardless of my attempts to tell these young men my actual topic, they refused to believe it. I believe they wished to revel in their righteous anger.
  Early on I almost terminated the conversation, but I persisted. Why? I was curious as to how angry they would become and hoped that their emotional state would reveal why they were so angry. And I believe that these young men did teach me something, something important.
  These young men feel powerless. And this is no illusion, they largely are powerless. They were all Americans, White, male, and under the age of 26. While I read online many people calling this combination one of 'privilege', I disagree. They have no real economic power, no political influence, they have no 'leaders' who are not corporate-controlled entertainers, and there is no special-interest lobby working for them. They face barriers in many ways - poor education, expensive education, limited job prospects, a legal system that favors others, and being told they are privileged, as well. Western society has been busily redefining their role for so long and in so many conflicting ways they have no clear concept of what they should be doing or why and certainly no higher calling, which often leads to a lack of higher aspirations. Secular, unchurched, or 'post-Christian Protestant' they have no underlying moral framework, religious community, or spiritual support to call upon. In short, these young men are truly lost.
  These young men are not stupid; they felt powerless, examined their lives and concluded that they are powerless. And they are correct - in any democratic system people without wealth or pull are powerless. They then tried to determine the primary reason that they are powerless and concluded that it is because of their government. This is also largely correct; the governmental system is the primary reason they are disenfranchised. But this is actually the start of the problem at hand - once they determined that the primary reason that they are powerless is the government, they stopped asking more questions. The next logical step should be to ask 'why is the particular form of government I live in making me powerless?'. That is the step that leads people in search of alternates to the system in which they live. Instead, these young men (as well as the majority of Anarchists, Libertarians, etc.) didn't ask the next question, instead reaching a conclusion. Their investigation went something like this;

"I feel powerless. Am I truly powerless?"
  They examine their lives and determine they are, in fact, powerless.
  "I am powerless. What is the primary reason I am powerless?"
  They examine their world and determine the government is the primary reason they are powerless.
  "The government is the primary reason I am Powerless."
  "Therefore, all governments are Bad."

  Yes, I am aware that there is a fair amount of political thought about such topics as Anarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism, Libertarianism, etc. I am focusing on the majority of people who adopt these positions and why they do so. After all, a lot of the young people who do ask 'what is it about my government that makes me feel powerless?' end up becoming Communists, National Socialists, etc. because they assume anything else is better than what they have. I will need to write about that in the future.
  Once these young adults reach their conclusion, that all government is bad, then it is a short trip to the belief that any regulation is bad simply because a government must exist to enforce it. Before too long this can lead to the conclusion that any form of authority is bad and that Anarchy is the only solution.
  Again, how can you blame these young adults? They have never been taught about true alternatives to the world they live in, they have often never been trained to question. They instinctively know something is wrong and are doing their level best to identify and correct the problem. They have never been taught about morals and ethics and in the absence of knowledge of actual morality they struggle to build a framework so that they can identify Good and Evil. Since the only certainty they have been able to build for themselves is Government = Bad their natural passion for goodness and justice is funneled into opposition to government.
  Thus, belief that someone wants kids to get a permit for lemonade drives them to righteous fury. In the absence of a real knowledge of good and evil; in a society that fails to guide them to their place in the world; in a culture that mocks concepts of honor, duty, and courtesy; and in a milieu that praises license as liberty it is almost all they have.
  My question for you is - how do we reach these people? How do we break through to them and show them a larger world? How do we teach them true morality and save them?

Egalitarian or Leaderless?

A recent study from the Stanford University purports to show something that it may not, in fact, show. This study, which was actually a computer simulation, was an attempt to discover why the modern world is composed overwhelmingly by 'stratified' societies rather than by 'egalitarian' societies.
The inherent biases of the researchers are prominently on display ranging from the blunt statement that any social structure that is not 'egalitarian' is selfish and wrong to the further statement by the lead researcher that,

"Inequalities in socioeconomic status are increasing sharply around the world. Understanding the causes and consequences of inequality and how to reduce it is one of the central challenges of our time."

While the King and his government abhor poverty, is 'reducing inequalities in socioeconomic status' truly "one of the central challenges of our time"? In the face of global economic instability, breakdowns in diplomatic relations, the continuance of Communist and Islamic terrorism, the growth in political power of criminal cartels, the surge in piracy, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian violence, the attempts to undermine key elements of societal stability, and the impending demographic crunch I think there are many more pressing concerns to face first.
Getting back to the study, we find within the introduction that there is an unproven assumption that hunter-gatherer societies were inherently egalitarian with no social structure at all. Of course, anthropological research of historical and existing hunter-gatherer societies find that most do, indeed, have some level of social structure. Interestingly, hunter-gatherer societies were (and are) incredibly violent with between 15% and 50% of all deaths being caused by murder or tribal warfare. There is some speculation that the less social structure there is, the more violent such societies were and are. While the editors of the Wikipedia entry on hunter-gatherers try to soften this picture of constant violence by arguing that the battles were prompted by 'grudges' rather than by a 'desire for resources' this just indicates that emotion ruled the killers.
The study ran a number of simulations with a number of variables to compare their models of egalitarian and stratified societies and they admit they were surprised by the results. If you dig through the numbers you find that egalitarian societies were much more stable than stratified societies - assuming, however, that there were no changes in the harvest or food yield year-to-year, women had a very narrow range of fertility, the only changes in population were natural birth and natural death (i.e., no violence at all, nor any accidents), etc. In other words, in Utopia egalitarian societies are more stable than stratified ones. By a rather narrow margin.
Interestingly enough, the model showed that stratified societies handled emergencies and crises much better, were stable over a much wider range of environmental and social factors, and did much better in any conditions approaching those of reality. An interesting takeway was that stratified societies received solid benefits from storing food while egalitarian societies didn't.

In the end this was, once again, a computer model founded upon the assumptions and biases of the researchers. But even within those parameters it shows that there are reasons that social structures exist; to add stability and to reduce violence. There is another reason,as well - leadership. Leaders do, indeed, place the welfare of their people over their own. They maintain a vision and a plan that stretches beyond the current crisis to prepare society for the next emergency, too.
We must also remember that acknowledging the utility and even the justice of social classes does not mean that nobles are 'better' than others, or that the poor are poor because they 'deserve to be poor'; all men and women are equal in their basic rights and all are capable of Heaven. Indeed, a noblle has more duties and responsibilities and will answer to God for failing to meet them! The goal of all Edanians, especially the leaders of the Kingdom, is to build a nation where a living wage and self-sufficiency are the beginnings of society, where charity is the the rule, and where the widow and orphan are cared for, the hungry are fed, and the naked are clothed.
What we as Edanians can learn from this is that the leaders of society, the Nobles and the King, must always adhere to the Knightly Virtues - prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, charity, diligence, patience, chastity, and humility.

The First of Many

[A Post by HRH Jonathan]

   I have been contemplating the situation of Israel and it's people, searching for a reason beyond Judaism that the "International Community" hates them so. And I have reached a conclusion; Israel is hated because it is the first of many, the first successful micro-nation. The Jewish people, spurred by the events of the 20th century, realized what all must eventually realize, that they shared an identity that separated them from the modern concept of the Nation-State. They realized that they were grouped together as a people, a culture, but that they were left behind in the era of regional identification of culture. So they came together and, through will and dedication, they fought through adversity and trials to make a place in the world that was for their culture.
        Because in the end, while those who create a new path (Such as Edan) will prosper, and perhaps lead the way, the mass of the new countries that will emerge after the coming turmoil will be those that never lost their identity, the cultures that will reform after the death of this dark age. The peoples and kings that retain their will to be a Culture, not just a Nation.
Scotland and Ireland will never be subdued, and the will of the people remains strong, even in the face of the European Union. There is hope for England, whose people seem to embrace the royalty as the leaders of the true Culture of the land. Before our eyes the Mao Dynasty of China is ending, already the attempted destruction of traditional Chinese identity is failing. Perhaps the cataclysm in Japan will give the people back that which makes them a Culture, and return the Emporer to his rightful throne? Who can say.
       But also many cultures and peoples will be lost in the Silent Revolution, the ones too weakened to reclaim their place. Russia may be bleeding away to memory, if something is not done the Culture within will never come back. France may vanish simply because of the Demographic Winter which is falling, despite their efforts to retain their culture. Many places in Africa have already become something else, so many places have become simply another modern Nation that the entire continent may lose the common base that connected the tribes and nations.
      So let us laud Israel for showing the world the path, even as the Modern Dead Culture despises them.

An article from the Distributist Review...

On the loss of access to leaders and power in democracy can be found here. It is related to this and this.

Democracy, Monarchy, Management, and Leadership

One common question that we face is ‘why do you support monarchy?’ in one of its various forms. After all, in the current world some variation of representative democracy seems to be the only way to govern. The fall of the Soviet Union led to an assumption that corporate capitalist democracy, socialist democracy, or some other flavor of representative democracy is the path the world is on.

Of course, the last 10 years have shown the faults of this assumption. From the balkanization of former Soviet territories into new nations to the repeated economic shocks which the most mature democracies of the West have only made worse the evidence shows that representative democracy will, to paraphrase John Adams, always destroy itself.

But why is that? From Greece to dozens of modern examples democracy fails. Some argue that Pareto was correct in arguing that democracy is a façade; others that Friedman was correct when he argued that voters are irrational in their voting choices; others argue that the ephemeral nature of a government that changes every few years makes it too unstable to survive; and, perhaps, Machiavelli was correct when he argued that, in the end, democracy breaks down when people realize they can vote themselves anything – and do.

When we speak of the failure of democracies we often hear the counter-argument that ‘monarchies were no better! There were many examples of terrible kings’. This is true. But it always makes us wonder – why do advocates of democracy excuse bad presidents and prime ministers while praising democracy but hold monarchy doomed by bad kings? Either a badly chosen person dooms the entire system, or it does not.

However, this does point out that both of these failures, the collapse of democracy and the danger of a bad king, both spring from the dichotomy that separates democracy from monarchy. This dichotomy has always existed but in the modern world it seems almost invisible. Indeed, some argue it doesn’t exist. In general this dichotomy is skills versus character. Or, as we call it, management versus leadership.

Management is a set of skills; planning your time; prioritizing tasks; communicating with and among subordinates, peers, and superiors; the documentation of procedures; etc. In the modern world many people, especially people who teach management skills. Include leadership as a skill. We posit that this concept, that leadership Is a skill on par with prioritizing tasks and that leadership can be learned in the classroom by anyone willing to do the homework, is one of the root causes of the recent economic difficulties. Time after time in the dot com burst and in the current recession there were stories of a major company, investment firm, venture capital group, Fortune 100 company, etc. where the people at the top had made catastrophic decisions which lead to the firm being in great peril. And time and again we learned that the response of these managers was to evade responsibility, hide the risks, and do their utmost to continue to gain great wealth for themselves at the expense of investors, shareholders, employees, even their own families.

Most, if not almost all, of these top business managers were, we are told, our ‘best and brightest’; graduates of Ivy League schools with MBAs from the top universities. Of course, ‘MBA’ stands for ‘Master of Business Administration’ and means that, as we stated, all of these managers responsible for costing millions of people trillions of dollars due to their own terrible management were trained that leadership is a skill that you can write down in your planner.

If leadership isn’t a skill, though, what is it? Leadership is the combination of traits and behaviors that cause you to be effective in giving purpose, direction, and motivation to others. The core traits of a leader are justice, courage, prudence, and temperance. These are called the Cardinal Virtues because you cannot have any unless you have all. To the best of our knowledge the only academic institutions that still strive to instill these virtues are the various military academies of the world, and they have varying degrees of emphasis on them (and, of course, varied results). The examples of business managers show the woeful lack of these traits in the financial world of corporate capitalism. Indeed, if anything the various crises of the last few decades show that the men and women from the ‘best’ schools are trained to embrace corruption, cowardice, foolishness, and gluttony.

History shows us that over time democracies slowly reject leadership in favor of management. Leaders come and go as elections pass by, meaning that it is difficult to judge the character of potential leaders – only skills can be assessed. Eventually the people elevate skills above character in the public sphere. Over time this elevation of skills over character becomes common in private life, as well. This erosion of admiration of virtuous character eventually leads to moral decline in society and leaders until Pareto, Friedman, and Machiavelli are shown to be correct.
This also explains the strength and weakness of monarchy. Monarchs and nobles are raised from birth to be leaders – if all goes well. The great monarchs and nobles of the past (as opposed to, perhaps, the great conquerors) displayed excellent character while the examples that discredit monarchies in the eyes of its foes were as flawed in character as any politician in a democracy.
At the same time the reliance of a kingdom upon the good character of its leaders encourages the elevation of those virtues throughout the citizenry. This is especially true when it is possible for a citizen to be elevated to the nobility by virtue and for a noble to lose their position through turpitude. When leadership is based upon and dependent upon moral, upright character then morality and virtues are esteemed and rewarded while immorality and baseness are despised and rejected. The reason that morality is rejected and baseness embraced in the modern West is because, inevitably, democracy rejects virtue and good character.

Welcome to the World

Note: Some terms and basic definitions in this article were coined by the micronational theorist Cesidio Tallini. Cesidio has spent a decade in theory and his boundless energy has resulted in a huge output of ideas and concepts. However, some of his conclusions are radically different than the concept of Edan; Please assume that the concepts and conclusions here are solely those of HRM Richard and other Edanians.



The world of today looks much different than the world into which I was born. The terms "Eastern Bloc" and "western Bloc" mean nothing; the Cold War ended with a few weeks of TV coverage, not nuclear holocaust; instead of taking over the world, Communism is now a bit of a quaint notion. But certain ideas remain. Among these are the First World/Second World/Third World classification of nations. But these ideas are starting to change, too.

The term First World tends to mean the wealthiest nations on Earth; places like America, France, and Switzerland. These are, in some ways, what all other nations wish to be - rich and politically influential, usually with a powerful military.

Close on their heels is the Second World, nations like Russia and Egypt; not as wealthy, not as influential. Now, the difference between First and Second World nations is a hard one to draw, especially since it originally meant 'nations allied with the US' (First) and 'nations allied with the USSR' (Second). Since the end of the Cold War many scholars refer to all First and Second World nations as 'Developed Nations', reflecting their advanced infrastructure, manufacturing, knowledge-based economy, etc.

This leads us to the Third World, or the 'Developing Countries'. In general, this means 'nations not as rich or as well-developed as First and Second World nations', but not always. For example, while Afghanistan is relatively poorly developed and poor, Indonesia is a fairly wealthy nation and both are rather different than Mexico. Some have argued that 'Third World' in usage means 'someplace that gets aid money from another nation'.

Altogether, however, all of these terms refer to nation-states with defined borders, a set government, etc. This doesn't apply to everyone, leading to the development of the term Fourth World about 20 years ago.

The term 'Fourth World' has two meanings, unfortunately. To the UN, it means the very poorest or the poor nation-states, such as Sudan or Haiti. I believe this is because the UN is composed of and deals with nation-states. The older, academic, definition of Fourth World is 'a nation without a state', such as American Indians, Australian Aborigines, the Basque, the Kurds, the Tamil, etc. In short, people who share a common language (or shared one), history, culture, etc. but are either nomadic or have lost control of physical territory. So they look like a 'nation', act like one, think like one, but have no state. One of the prime examples of this is the Romani, commonly known in English as the Gypsies. Worldwide there are, probably, between 4 and 6 million Romani with a shared culture, history, ancestry, regional dialects, etc. - and no representation in the UN or other bodies because they are a stateless nation.

Some of these groups, however, have joined together and created the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. The UNPO is almost a 'UN for people who can't joine the UN'. The UNPO helps its members be heard in international diplomacy and helps them gain official recognition. Since its founding several nations of the UNPO have gone on to become members of the UN. With members ranging from the Turkmen to Taiwan, the UNPO shows that the Fourth World is as varied as the First, Second or Third.

Now we get to some original, and somewhat controversial, terms. The first is 'Fifth World", coined by Cesidio Tallini. My definition of the term differs from his a bit and is 'either a nation smaller and less coherent than existing Fourth World members, an active secessionist movement or a serious attempt at nation-building that has survived a decade or more'. An example of the former would be, say, one of the smaller tribes of American Indians that considers itself distinct but because of small size is forced to act as part of a larger tribe. An example of the second is the Tamil. An example of the latter is the Kingdom of Talossa; it has been around for decades, has a well-defined culture (including a language) and continues to exist and even grow. There aren't many Fifth World examples - this is primarily because the Fifth World is an 'in between' stage and, therefore, usually temporary. Nations only remain Fifth World if they are unable or unwilling to move to the Fourth world. In the case of small indigenous people groups they are hindered by poverty and exogamy. Talossa is, on the other hand, simply as big as they want to be.

This doesn't mean that there aren't a fair number of Fifth World nations, nor that a nation can't spend decades as part of the Fifth World. Just that few will remain there indefinitely. It also shouldn't be assumed that all Fifth World nations are transitioning from Sixth World status toward Fourth World membership - some groups are there as they 'fade away'.

The Sixth World, as I define it, consists of emergent secessionist groups or serious micronations that have not yet reached Fifth World levels of membership or culture. The Kingdom of Hawai'i and the Leauge of the South are examples of the former while the Republic of Molossia and Edan are examples of the latter. The Kingdom of Hawai'i and the League of the South are entirely serious secessionist movements. They both wish independence for a particular region and a particular people; its members share language, customs, and culture; they have political will and identifiable leaders. They sound like great candidates for the Fifth, even the Fourth, World. But they are still small and lack the sheer clout to 'move up', as it were. This doesn't mean they are wasted effort or foolishness; both groups have made political statements that have reached surprisingly large audiences and both show the promise of being bigger and more influential in the future. They are obviously influential enough in ideology and culture to be self-perpetuating.

Sixth World micronations are a bit more - scattered. Many in that group like where they are, like it a great deal. Molossia has had world-wide exposure, has many visitors, a tremendous amount of goodwill with other micronationalists, and seems to have no interest whatsoever in becoming a Fifth World nation. The Kingdom of Edan is paused on the upper edge of the Sixth World; currently we aren't even trying to grow the size of the community, although our ultimate goal is membership in the UNPO within 40 years. I agree with Cesidio on his definition of micronations in the Sixth world; they range from sizeable, stable communities that like being such to small nations that are in the process of building their cultural strength and citizenry.

Then we come to the Seventh World. When Cesidio write about the Seventh World, he refuses to capitalize it (making it 'seventh world') - I tend to agree. The vast majority of micronations are created, exist, and end in the seventh world. Micronations like Choconya, the Principality of St. Valentine, the Jahn Empire, and Port Colice (don't bother, they are all gone) are some of the past examples of seventh world nations. Current examples are Cakeland, The Republic of North Altania, and Scientopia. These nations tend to be created by people who are very young, have a burst of activity at the beginning, and quickly start making alliances amongst themselves, particpate in (*cough*) "wars" with other seventh world micronations, have 5 political parties in a population of 12 people, and so on.

Let me be clear; I don't think there is anything "wrong" about any of these activities of seventh world groups. It is obviously a lot of fun or there wouldn't be so darn many of them: this index lists over 540 micronations, the vast majority of which no longer exist - and the index is only a fraction of the micronations that have come into existence and faded away in the last decade or so. In a way, seventh world micronations should be seen as a form of roleplaying game. Perhaps we should even consider large MMORPG's like World of Warcraft to be part of the seventh world, too.

Heck, some of them 'bleed over' into the Sicth World. The Empire of Reunion is a lot like any other seventh world micronation - but it has been around a long time, has (or at least has had) a substantial population, and has developed a strong culture. Its a Sixth World nation, but almost despite itself (note: HRM Richard is a fan of the Empire of Reunion and has been for years).

This framework of ideas allows you to see the proposed progression of Edan more clearly. Currently, Edan is a Sixth World nation working hard to build the foundation to take it to the Fifth World. Once there the Kingdom will focus on growth and concept until sheer mass of numbers (citizens) and weight of culture allows it to exert a broad enough influence to join the Fourth World. After that its just more of the same.

More to come soon.

What an Edanian Looks Like

While there are a lot fewer Edanins today then there were a decade ago, we soldier on. The biggest reason that Edan was made smaller, quieter, and more private was that the King realized that most micronations do thinks in the wrong order. In the military this is called 'Ready, Fire, Aim!' thinking. HRM Richard stopped and decided to make the road, then travel down it.

As the last article stated, the Kingdom of Edan was made for a reason, which is;

The purpose of the Kingdom of Edan is to create a sovereign nation whose culture, laws, and values lead to individual and community actions that further the weal of the Kingdom and its citizens while also promulgating those same laws, values, and resultant culture. ... the goal of the Kingdom of Edan is to build, maintain, and spread a just and moral civilization.

The next step is to discuss Edanians, the people of which the Kingdom is made. All Edanians will share certain traits, especially at first. The first thing that makes Edanians different is that they want to belong; after all, micronations are something people want to belong to. Since Edan has the requirement of an oath of allegience rather than automatic citizenship, this will never change; all Edanians will be volunteers.

This means that every Edanian wants the same thing - to build a better country. The way that you do this is to start with the citizens.

The constitution was the first thing made for two simple reasons; 1) it defines the nation, allowing potential citizens to understand Edan quickly and 2) it exists to protect Edanians. Indeed, Edanians don't swear to uphold the Constitution - the King does. That is because the Constitution is the King's oath to the people that he will never become a tyrant.

The next thing we need are citizens. What are we looking for in a citizen? Well, someone who agrees with the idea of a constitutional Catholic monarchy based upon Distributist ideals, naturally. Someone willing to wirk at building something new. And someone willing to build a virtuous nation.

There is a concept that you don’t hear much about anymore; civic virtue. Heck, virtue in general is seen as a quaint, obsolete idea. But these two closely linked but distinct ideas, virtue and civic virtue, are as critical today as ever. Indeed, they are the center of the idea of Edan.

The simple definition of "virtue" is ‘ a character trait that is inherently good’, so that developing and holding these traits is something that makes a person better than they would otherwise be.

The Four Cardinal Virtues are Prudence, Temperance, Courage, and Justice. While I grew up hearing of these traits (for all his faults, my father is of the Greatest Generation, after all), they are so outrÈ today that many don’t know what they mean.

‘Prudence’ is not caution (although that is the usual modern meaning) or timidity – it means ‘sound judgment’, the ability to distinguish between acting with courage and acting recklessly, for example. Prudence is seen not as action, but the knowledge and wisdom that guides actions.

‘Temperance’ is usually seen as another word for ‘moderation’, but it is more. It really means ‘moderation through control of the self’. The ability to control oneself is a key element of acting virtuously. After all, a person with the prudence to know which actions are proper and which are immoral but without the self-control to avoid the immoral in favor of the good cannot act in a proper manner. Temperance is seen as guiding not just eating, drinking, and sex, but also the choice of words and courses of action.

‘Justice’ is the impartial treatment of all individuals, regardless of race, creed, or origin, and thereby according them what they actually deserve. This is not some blanket ‘everyone is OK’ PC tolerance concept. Justice encompasses punishment as well as reward, rejection as well as acceptance. A stranger is judged by his actions, not the color of his skin – but if his actions merit punishment, then the color of his skin is no shield against justice. This is also true of gender, religion; you name it.

The fourth cardinal virtue is Courage. ‘Courage’ means the trait of acting in a moral manner in the face of fear. Regardless of shame, pain, loss, or death, the courageous man acts properly.

These virtues are Cardinal because they are each necessary for the others; without prudence, you cannot know when or how to act; without courage, you will not act when it is risky (and moral behavior is almost always risky); etc. In short, you either have them all, or you effectively have none of them.

The ancient Greeks, especially Socrates, identified these virtues and their central, critical role is moral life and it was soon assumed by his intellectual heirs to be proven that these virtues were key to living a proper, moral life. Thus, these virtues form the foundation of the concepts ‘good’ behavior.

This brings us to the Civic Virtues. Where the Cardinal Virtues are seen as the elements that make a person’s own life worthwhile, the Civic Virtues are the elements that make a person a good citizen and the building blocks of a good society. In other words, just as the Cardinal Virtues make you an objectively good person, Civic Virtues build an objectively good society.

There is some debate on exactly what is meant by ‘civic virtue’, with some arguing that it means simply to be involved in the community, or even to send our children to public school. In the end, however, the definition of ‘Civic Virtue’ boils down to the core concepts that each individual has a duty to society as a whole and that this duty is to act in a moral, selfless manner.

The fascinating thing about civic virtue is that it is a virtue of individuals, not the group; it is not about the government helping the people or forcing certain activities with laws, but about individuals placing the common good above their own narrow interests of their own free will.

Why would someone do that? Why would anyone reject their own narrow interests and voluntarily restrict their own free willfor the 'common good'? Two reasons, really. The first is the idea summed up in the phrase 'a rising tide lifts all boats'. If the society as a whole is doing better, every person within that society is also seeing their overall life improve. The second is much more direct. That is the fact that the Cardinal Virtues show that Civic Virtue is a good. This means that if you are living a prudent, temperate, just, courageous life you will embrace civic virtue for its own sake.

Further, we must remember the admonition; "'Freedom' does not mean the liberty to do whatever you want, 'freedom' means the liberty to do what you ought".

More on Theory and How Things Work

A problem that faces any nation (indeed, any group) is the issue of free riders – people who enjoy the benefits of a group but do not pay a full share of the costs of providing the same benefits. This really only refers to people who choose to be free riders, not people that are, for example, too poor to pay taxes because of a disability. Instead, a free rider would be someone who exploited loopholes in the law to avoid paying taxes at the same level as their peers.

Most states deal with free riders by using state power to coerce participation, usually via mandatory taxes, military draft, compulsory jury duty, etc. In Edan, this situation is a bit more direct since all adult citizens make a personal Oath of Fealty to at least the King and many will also make an Oath of Fealty to their direct noble. This Oath is an acknowledgement that the citizen owes duty to the King and Kingdom as much as the King and Kingdom owes duty to the citizen. This direct and explicit social contract makes free riders more or a social problem in Edan.

On the other hand, one of the goals of the Kingdom is to limit both centralized power as much as possible and to reduce the direct interference of government into the lives of citizens. We end up with the following dilemma:

1) The Kingdom has a duty to its citizens

2) Citizens have a duty to the Kingdom

3) Any services provided for citizens by the Kingdom that do not have compulsory support will result in some citizens being free riders

4) Thus, any services provided by the Kingdom that are not compulsory will, eventually, collapse

5) The Kingdom is designed to avoid compulsion

The answer is two-fold. First, the Kingdom as a whole (i.e., the Royal government) must restrict the services it provides to only those which only the Royal government can provide or are of such a nature that participation = support.

An example of the first sort of service (something only the Royal government can provide) is the Royal Bank. This central bank will operate as the central bank of any modern nation; setting monetary policy. An example of the second sort of service is the Royal Post; unless you buy postage and submit a letter, you do not participate in the service; buying the stamp supports the service.

But what of other services? For example; in any territory the laying of sewers or the creation of a power grid requires access to multiple jurisdictions (in this case, the territories of every landed Noble as well as access to the freeholds of every citizen). The legal difficulties for any entity other than the Crown are large and the entry costs for any competitors very harsh. This tends to indicate that monopoly conditions would exist is a laissez-faire marketplace, a result that is unacceptable in private hands. Therefore, certain utilities will be limited Royal monopolies. This means that these functions will be built and maintained by the King and the Nobles for the benefit of citizens as a function of government. Primarily, these Royal monopolies will be public roads, electricity, water treatment and mass public water, sewage, and large-scale natural gas.

More on this will be discussed in a later piece.

But other actions that many in the modern world see as ‘government services’ but were known until quite recently as ‘charity’ will not be a function of government. This ranges from cash assistance to the poor to education funded by Royal tax monies. You see, in addition to the free rider problem, these programs have historically ended up being excuses for the growth of governmental power at the expense of freedom. One good example is the German parents either in prison or facing it for teaching their own children, an action supported by the courts of the European Union. The principles of Distributism must guide Edanians to push such works as locally as possible; people educating their own children or forming their own local schools; local charities formed by local people and local churches; aid coming from communities, not into it.

This will lead to the next series of pieces about: Distributism as an economic, social, and political ideology; Feudal technocracy and how it might work in the modern world; how to keep the best of competition while avoiding the worst of laissez-faire Capitalism; the pitfalls of Royal monopolies.

Feudal Technocratic Distributism

As I mentioned earlier, the (rather unwieldy) name I have for the general theory of how Edan would work (and remember, Edan is an attempt to build a new way for all countries to work) is Feudal Technocratic Distributism. The name leads directly to a question – what the heck does that mean? Let’s take the name one element at a time to illustrate the idea.

‘Feudal’ is, of course, from feudalism. Feudalism was a system that included political power, social norms, and economics as a whole. Essentially, the feudal system made explicit the social contract (the feudal lord protected the lives, rights, and property of his subjects and they, in turn, provided services to the feudal lord to allow him to devote his time to his duties). It was typically a localized system where individuals had direct relationships with their leaders. Day to day governmental activity ranging from military training to taxes to lawsuits were local. Loyalty to the King was a method of preventing the fragmentation of society into dozens of smaller states (and the resulting increase in warfare) and also created a situation where the average person policed the loyalty of their leaders to the greater good. In addition to the explicitly personal nature of government, feudalism also tended to result in decisions and authority being delegated as locally as possible. Lords were jealous of their rights; the people were likewise jealous of their rights and leery of distant, impersonal authority. These social pressures combined to cause the reverse of the federal systems – distributed power and a strong disincentive to a large, central, impersonal bureaucracy.

When I speak of ‘technocracy’ I mean the political science meaning, not the political movement that began in the 1920’s. While Edan will not be ‘ruled by technical experts’ per se, technical experts will be involved within government in leadership roles based upon the existence of governmental monopolies (a topic for a near-future post). I plan to devote much more time to explaining this soon, so please bear with me.

Distributism is an economic system developed in many parts of the world prior to the Industrial revolution and then superseded by laissez-faire Capitalism via a number of mechanisms. Sometimes called the ‘Third Way’ (with Capitalism and Socailism/Communism being the other two ‘ways’), the goal of Distributism is to have as many families/individuals within a society as possible be economically independent or, at least, members of member-driven cooperatives and guilds. Like feudalism (an political system which ‘bleeds into’ social structures and economics), Distributism crosses over into social and political spheres by its nature.

By examining these elements, I hope you can see that they came from somewhere – that somewhere is Catholic social teachings – even though I didn’t know very much at all about catholic social teachings when I began Edan 8 years ago. In this case, while searching for arguments to bolster my own inchoate ideas of a just society I learned that the details had been worked out by others long ago. I hope that my synthesis of these ideas can lead Edan to be an example of a nation more just, more free, and more good than any that have come before.

The very intimidating-sounding Feudal Technocratic Distributism can be boiled down to a number of points that can help anyone understand the goals and methods involved.

These points are:

1. All men have a right to private property.

2. All men have a right to just compensation for their labor and their goods.

3. All business arrangements, including employment, must be entered into freely.

4. Private ownership of property is good for the person, the family, and the nation as a whole.

5. Work (whether physical, artistic, or intellectual) is a form of personal property.

6. Leadership and responsibility should be as small and local as possible.

7. All families should be as self-sufficient as is possible.

The last point is key and prevents Edan from being a game:

8. There is no utopia.

The Current State of Theory

As I mentioned in an earlier piece, the initial focus of Edan was on creating a model of how government can remain as direct, local, and (really) comprehensible as possible. Modern nation-states are too distant, too centralized, and too dependent upon a faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy; the average citizen has literally no contact with leaders and little chance (or incentive!) to understand the size and scope of government.

With the goal of keeping the government as personal as possible while maintaining social cohesion and the ability to grow (the goal is a real-world nation, eventually) and have the potential for a strong, central response in times of real crisis, I was at a bit of a loss at first. The initial idea, a Constitutional Monarchy, was not a solution; there are dozens of CM’s in Europe that are currently stable and easily as impersonal as the massive Federal systems of places like America or the Party Systems of China and its clones.

After reflection, I realized that at least some of the stability of a CM comes from the monarch, themselves. This pushed me to modify the constitution and create the Nobility – embodiments of the government. A name, face, even family that was both personally responsible for and to the people they governed. Add in the ability of the King to revoke nobility for failure to fulfill the responsibilities of leadership and a Senate of elected representatives, and I felt I was almost done. Local, direct leaders for the people with clear chains of responsibility and appeal with the King and Senate watching the nobles and each other for abuses. The King is the focal point of the nation as a whole, creating cohesion, and with emergency powers could use the resources of the entire nation to deal with threats.

But it isn’t quite done. I fear that a large legislature will lead inevitably to a large bureaucracy. I am also concerned with power ‘creeping up the chain’ and becoming more centralized which will, eventually, mean a large, impersonal Crown government and a faceless bureaucracy. Further, large corporation can and do have serious power within any society and they are the business world’s incarnation of federal government and impersonal bureaucracy! Toss in my acting Minister of State reminding me of such things as the need for a central authority to create roads, canals, airports, and lay utilities and I realized that even the Third Draft of the Constitution is too much Business and Government as Usual.

What to do? The constitution can’t cover everything. So: the constitution will deal with the King, the Nobles, the Assembly, and the Courts. Everything else must be codified into law or, even better, made a societal norm. Certain functions of the government, especially roads and utilities, must be centrally controlled, but in a way that maximizes efficiency (like business) but avoids placing profits over people (the government is about serving citizens, not making a profit).

About this time I learned of Distributism, the ‘third way’ economic theory from the end of the 19^th Century that was quite popular until WWII. Eschewing the collectivism and tyranny of Communism and Socialism, the authoritarianism of Fascism, and the self-destructive aspects of laissez-faire Capitalism, Distributism shares many of the goals of Edan in the economic sphere – keep business as small as possible, as local as possible, and as personal as possible. Voluntary private restrictions are preferred over legislations. The primary goal is weal, not profit. To fit the ideas of the semi-Feudal structure of the government together with the idea of natural monopolies for certain functions and a Distributist economic outlook, I devised a tentative framework I am currently calling Feudal Technocratic Distributism.

I will go into more detail in future pieces, especially since I am still working out the details!

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 Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were both relatively stable, but were neither monarchies nor places that any sane person would wish to emulate. The next criterion is that a nation should be just. By ‘justice’ I don’t just mean ‘the rule of law’; after all, Nazi Germany was a law-abiding nation. They just had terrible laws! I mean that the nation must have morally sound laws that are enforced in a consistent, ethical manner. A Monarch is beholden to no political party or faction, but is focused upon the weal of the nation as a whole. After all, his personal wealth, status, and well-being are a direct result of the same aspects of his nation. Sometimes a king may be poorly suited to leadership, so most monarchies have some check on absolute power, either in common law or a constitution. The checks and balances of such systems on a King ensure that the laws and actions of the King remain at some tolerable minimum of justice and impartiality. Edan does not have an existing tradition of common law, so I decided that Edan will be a Constitutional Monarchy.

“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 Europe that live in constitutional monarchies. I realized that most of these nations were similar to the British model and the role and power of the monarch in Britain have been shrinking every year. I realized that I must avoid this slow erosion toward the Republican/Parliamentary Democracy that is destroying the viability of most nations. But how?

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 Roman Empire was revitalized by Catholicism and re-entered decline only after rejecting the tenets of Catholicism and returning to paganism. After the fall of Rome the Church maintained civilization and knowledge, rebuilt the West, and was the galvanizing force in the forging of the great Western nations and the subversion of warlike impulses into creativity. The reformation plunged Europe into a century of war and the Enlightenment, that deliberate rejection of religion, was the beginning of the end of stability in the world.

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 Europe has failed to. But that is the next essay.

“Monarchy is the one system of government where power is exercised for the good of all.”

- Aristotle

Creating an Edanian Culture

If Edan is to be a nation (“people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality”), then we must examine the elements that make a nation. Definitions of ‘nation’ other than that quoted above include such criterion as psychological outlook and shared economic activity. While territory is sometimes included in the definition of ‘nation’, increasingly it is not. The dispersal of people amongst many territories, such as the Jewish Diaspora, has not made the people involved less of a nation. The philosopher Ernest Renan argued that a nation is defined by those people who choose to be members of that nation, a form of Voluntarism very apropos to Edan (even though Renan was not discussing the founding of new nations).

But one common thread is the idea that a nation is defined by a common culture. Culture is, broadly, the common values, social norms, institutions, and artifacts shared by a people or nation. I know, I know; the definitions are tautological (‘nations’ are people that share a culture while a ‘culture’ are the things shared by the people of a nation). But this reflects that the concepts of ‘nation’ and ‘culture’ are not truly separable. Therefore, it is imperative that Edan develop an Edanian culture if it is to survive, let alone thrive. Any attempt to create a nation, either real or model, is predicated upon developing a culture concurrently.

In light of this, there will be a series of articles on values (both personal and collective), norms, institutions and their social importance, and artifacts.

The Basic Theory behind Edan, plus a little history

The Kingdom of Edan started with a very simple idea: government is no more or less than what people believe it to be. The modern idea of a “nation-state” is a rather new one and was only really nailed down in the Montevideo Convention of 1933. Even the Convention, which is the international law of what a country is, is rather vague. Further, the real world shows that there are exceptions to this rule, such as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. While membership in the UN or recognition by other nations is sometimes seen as “proof” that a nation is a “real” nation, Taiwan is not a member of the UN nor is it recognized by most “real” nations – yet it has an army, navy, territory, parliament, president, dealing with other countries, etc. Since to collapse of the Soviet Union more than 30 “new” countries have come into existence,; of course, many of these nations existed in one form or another before the Soviet Union or they had been striving for recognition for many years.

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 Tibet, Taiwan, and Kurdistan.

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 Montevideo convention, a legal treaty, defines a ‘state’ as not needing recognition by other states to exist. Further, the Montevideo Convention does not mention that a state must either totally control its own territory nor that others recognize any territorial claim – just that the state have a territorial claim.

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. Russia only held onto what territory it did because of a combination of ethnic identity, economic ties, and brute force. I kept wondering what the cause of this desire for smaller nations could be until I developed my own theory – people like things on a human scale.

The development of very large, centralized nations is really a modern one. Sure, Rome and China had massive empires, but they were forced to have local contacts and connections due to the limits of travel and communication. As railroads and telegraphs spread and industrialization caused urbanization, the empires of the modern world grew larger and more impersonal. I am far from being the first to notice this and a slew of great thinkers have addressed this dehumanization within the modern world.

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 17^th and 18^th Centuries (that led to the rise of the modern nation-state) or in the 11^th (the beginning of the Great Kingdoms) or even in the 6^th (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 Serbia or a Montenegro.

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 Kingdom of Edan as an inherently personal, intimate nation. Citizens not only know their leaders but have a personal connection with their leaders. While capable of growing into a large nation, the social contract between citizen and government would always remain explicit instead of implicit and personal rather than impersonal. Since constitutional monarchies are, in my opinion, arguably the most stable form of modern government, I began with that as the basis for the creation of a constitution.

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.