|
Post by Brian Capelle on Dec 15, 2005 12:09:53 GMT -6
He seems opposed to natopia joining it, not necessarily it existing overall; though I DEFINATELY agree with it being able to have both.
That said, I just don't know about Sullifree anymore, I am starting to become dissalusioned with the whole affair. Micronationalism without idiots like the Babkhans and without such a ridiculous amount of bureocracy and stupidity would be fun, but we have a micronational world a far cry from the world I originally enjoyed in the early 2000's.
|
|
|
Post by Carson Smith on Dec 15, 2005 14:36:59 GMT -6
That is just the problem in micronations today. I am of the opinion that people need to stop dreaming and embrace the present instead of dreaming of the past. One can never enjoy oneself if one does not commit to it.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Dec 15, 2005 15:03:26 GMT -6
The UC is a completely different animal... the effect of these talks whould have no consequence on the outcome of the UC. It may certainly continue on, as I've said before.
Yes, the GC would need to be involved in these talks, as will every single nation out there?
And I suppose you're right about the seperate congress thing, it will fracture a system designed to unify.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Dec 16, 2005 0:47:07 GMT -6
Perhaps you're right Carson, but it would be nice to look back and see improvement as that is what we must strive for, and I just am not seeing it.
|
|
|
Post by olorix on Dec 16, 2005 3:25:10 GMT -6
Mr Wombat, what I raised was nothing to do with numbers of delegates or such like, but simply my expression of mystification at why the Grand Commonwealth wasn't here, which further proves what Carson was saying about people being too focused on the past.
EDIT: I was asking what the UC was but then realised what it is! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Carson Smith on Dec 16, 2005 7:01:09 GMT -6
Brian, things are improving in most parts of the micronational world! It's just a different kind of improvement than we're used to.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Dec 16, 2005 12:01:07 GMT -6
Perhaps technologically and prject advanements are improving, but attitudes are not and nations with nonpersistant leaders are dying faster than ever.
|
|
|
Post by Carson Smith on Dec 16, 2005 12:44:44 GMT -6
I would rather the micronational world have three nations with only a few extremely dedicated people each than one hundred so-so ones who couldn't care less.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Dec 16, 2005 16:10:38 GMT -6
I must agree, but hundreds with a lot of dedication would be nice as well And the attitude thing was more important for me than the death of nations.
|
|
|
Post by presidentwoodrow on Dec 16, 2005 16:23:18 GMT -6
lovely has effectively opened the flood gates in terms of new nations created. On this note i more worried about lovely taking over rather than the other superpowers. I be more than happy to consider a invitation to the UC if it works
|
|
|
Post by Mr F Wombat on Dec 16, 2005 16:50:19 GMT -6
Perhaps, gentlemen (and ladies, I'm sure...), we could stop focusing on the present, and focus on the more immediate task in hand?
Superpowers notwithstanding...and to be honest I've never heard so much bandying around with that phrase until this conference, in micronationalism at least...do we feel it is possible for some sort of Congress of Micras, or whatever we want to call it, to take place? Would smaller or "medium-size" specific-Congresses be more suited to what the delegates here would prefer? Should "superpowers" such as the GC and (since this seems to be a common consensus) Shireroth, be left out of the equation altogether?
Can we have a discussion about these issues, and less about a) Danny Wallace b) pernicious dwellings on the past and c) slightly more pernicious dwellings on the present? That'd be great.
|
|
|
Post by presidentwoodrow on Dec 16, 2005 16:56:37 GMT -6
well we smaller nations do need a voice of some sort
|
|
|
Post by Mr F Wombat on Dec 16, 2005 18:43:37 GMT -6
Yes, but do you feel that what is needed a small-nations-only Congress, or that a Congress that includes all micronations would be fair? I'm using Congress only because I've forgotten the word Nathan used, by the way, feel free to correct me.
The only thing about a Congress of small nations...any resolution that didn't only affect the small nations would ignored. And if we have seperate Congresses for medium-sized and small nations, then we will also logically have Congresses for the "superpowers", however unofficial these are. Funnily enough, these might be closer to the Balance of Power that existed in Europe a century or so ago. The danger is that this "superpowered Congress" would probably pass resolutions, or reach agreements, or forge blood-signed contracts with daemons, that would affect the other nations, because of their very size. This is another reason why I propose that a Congress where all are represented equally (but perhaps without equal bargaining power) is more reasonable, if not more fair, than a Congress where the illusion of an equal footing for all is provided, and then quickly demolished when the mini-Congress tries to do anything.
Unless I'm missing the point entirely, and what people would like is secret discussion between smaller nations which the larger nations are not aware of. That's an entire other kettle of fish.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Dec 17, 2005 2:44:46 GMT -6
I think you've made a very good point Eoin. I'm begining to think the idea of having seperate congresses would be counter-productive to the main goal here.
The UC would actually be an exellent vehicle for the small to medium sized nations to unite their voice, should they desire. While these congresses will involve everyone: big or one-man-bands.
So, this thought just struck me, and its about 4am, but would a clause in the Lindstrom PAct that says that "official" congresses must include all signatory nations be conducive to the inclusiveness we're going for? Or would that limitation start the slippery slope of regulations that leads to bureacracy and therefore YAMO?
|
|
|
Post by Christian Mackintosh on Dec 18, 2005 14:09:43 GMT -6
I think that in order to achieve stability such a clause would be worth the 'risk.'
|
|