Welcome to the National Constitutional Convention of 2014 - 110 years after the Declaration of the Founding of the Lovian States - where we will be debating, updating and creating the new Lovia. As 110 years ago, our ancestors gathered around 100 delegates in the Capital and had them debate and decide the future of the many states and peoples that had formed in our Lovian land. Now we will come together again with 100 delegates and debate and decide the future of the many peoples of Lovia.
In one weeks time, on the 28th of October, we will have 100 delegates elected from the communities of Lovia. Together we will gather and form a new constitution and create a new stable era in Lovian history, free from uprisings and full of life.
From the 29th we will having timetabled debates and votes to create our new constitution. Slowly we will form a new framework from which we shall take strength, confident that we shall be leaving the stagnation and self-destruction of the past behind.
I hope to end this convention in either late November or early December. Then we shall have our new constitution and it shall be in time for the Federal Elections, in whatever form they take under our new constitution.
The public forum is open to all, but only delegates shall be allowed into the halls for debates and voting. Although there will be public seating and broadcasting the public will not be able to take part in the debates or voting.
Here delegates are listed along with who they represent and empty delegate spaces are filled. Additionally you'll find the timetable for debates and votes here.
Please name your delegates and give their current employment, remember this is a-political so no parties allowed but if you really think one person is uber-popular (and I will challenge this if I don't think they are) then you can add them in.
1st November - Sovereignty and Administrative Subdivisions debate start
2nd November - Freedoms, Rights and Responsibilities of Individuals and Citizenship debate start
6th November - End of debate on Sovereignty and Administrative Subdivisions, beginning of voting
7th November - End of debate on Freedoms, Rights and Responsibilities of Individuals and Citizenship, beginning of voting
8th November - Close of voting on Sovereignty and Administrative Subdivisions
9th November - Close of voting on Freedoms, Rights and Responsibilities of Individuals and Citizenship
Second Week
8th November - Legislature, Executive and Judiciary debate start
9th November - Congressional Roles and Procedure debate start
13th November - End of debate on Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, beginning of voting
14th November - End of debate on Congressional Roles and Procedure, beginning of voting
15th November - Close of voting on Legislature, Executive and Judiciary
16th November - Close of voting on Congressional Roles and Procedure
Third Week
15th November - Amending the Constitution and Amending the Law debate start
16th November - Ministries and Committees debate start
20th November - End of debate on Amending the Constitution and Amending the Law, beginning of voting
21st November - End of debate on Ministries and Committees, beginning of voting
22nd November - Close of voting on Amending the Constitution and Amending the Law
23rd November - Close of voting on Ministries and Committees
Fourth Week
22nd Nobember - Justice System debate start
23rd November - Elections debate start
27th November - End of debate on Justice System, beginning of voting
28th November - End of debate on Elections, beginning of voting
29th November - Close of voting on Justice System
30th November - Close of voting on Elections
Aftermath
1st December - Implementation of the constitution
Public Forum
Welcome to all. Here is where you can talk about anything related to the convention.
Welcome!
Revert to former state governments
State councils will be unable to pass legislation at the moment due to larger inactivity. I propose that we switch back to governors and deputy governors to run the whole state (within their own rights of course). --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:28, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. The discrepencies in activity between the states as well as inactivity as a whole make the current system as a whole (though not required by constitution?) unworkable. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:04, October 22, 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to simplify the system on the user side certainly. I think that devolution is important, we just need to not try and replicate the Congress five times in every state. I hope that you two will want to be delegates then. :D HoffmannKunarianTALK 21:24, October 22, 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think it would be much simpler to focus on a federal government. I don't see the benefit to devolution, and it's really not workable. I guess we could give a little more power to the governors but I honestly think it's hard to have both devolution and simplicity without tyranny, and simplicity is definitely more important at this point. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:28, October 22, 2014 (UTC)
Democracy has a sliding scale. At one end you get slow decisions and lots of protections, bureaucracy. At the other end you get fast decisions and few protections, autocracy. We must consider democracy in an IC and OOC way. OOC, the way we actually make decisions, we should aim to lean towards autocracy in State governments with constitutional courts to hold rogue governments to account. IC, the way we RP decisions, we should aim to be central in our approach and RP a completely democratic council.
To be clear, we shouldn't just be thinking about this just IC/OOC but also OOC/IC. HoffmannKunarianTALK 23:35, October 22, 2014 (UTC)
I guess state councils are fine if they're entirely IC, meaning no OOC elections for them. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:55, October 22, 2014 (UTC)
It's lots of bureucracy to have state councils, elections, because we have little number of users. Traspes (talk) 00:04, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
I'd say, from the standpoint of an online, fictitious nation, it makes the most sense at this point to have a governor and dep. governor for each state (these will be actual users), and have a "fake" state council that is simply part of the fictitious country. That would allow us to keep the realistic part of the bureaucracy that we spent so much time setting up while maintaining state activity on the site. Personally, I supported the devolution movement of 2013, but the state councils were a poor implementation IMO. Now, due to limited user activity, I'd rather have evolution to the federal government that will allow us to pass laws with limited activity on the site. --QZ - RWCP 00:24, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
And do you think that we can create a state council (or territory council?), a legislature in Truth Island?? Traspes - Dianna Bartol 00:42, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
Truth Island certainly needs devolution, but the form of that needs to be discussed. Forming a Truth Island State might not be the way forwards, but an autonomous region of Clymene might be the way that we give it the self-determination without causing too many issues. After all if Truth Island can be a State, what's to stop Philosophers' Island being a state? or Discovery Isle? or South Kings? We must think of the consequences of our actions and at the moment autonomy within their respective states is the best way forwards in my opinion for these more independent thinking territories. HoffmannKunarianTALK 06:04, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to a South Kings State or Discovery Isle State but there's no interest for that in those areas. Apart from Marcus' coimments Traspes and I support autonomy, which would be exactly what you're thinking of as an autonomous region but not tied to any state, instead under the Lovian government. HORTON11: • 17:19, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
@ Traspes - Yes, there should be a local legislature for Truth Island in order to oversee local government functions, though it might be best to just have an IC legislature as is being proposed for the states. HORTON11: • 17:47, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
You don't think that Discovery Isle has any interest or South Kings? Firstly Pool alone has a deeper more full out history and culture than Truth Island and South Kings is an area with an actual history that is realistic AND interesting. I'm also interested in Truth Island but you need to start being realistic about it and its history or I'll have to side with Time and shut this down before it gets out of hand. And NO Truth Island will NOT be an effective state. It's Autonomy within Clymene. HoffmannKunarianTALK 18:21, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with QZ on the idea of having an OOC/IC Gov./Dep. Gov., and then having a solely IC State Council that only "rubber stamps" the policies of the Governor and Deputy Governor. Dirk BrandtReximus55 01:39, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
Glad that we're on board with the idea of OOC pragmatism and IC realism on the State governments. One the implementation of State Councils, I believe they were too much work for a reduced number of users. Combined with other problems I think they led to the issues of stagnation. Devolution must be maintained I believe but we can now use the experience we've gained to implement it properly. HoffmannKunarianTALK 06:01, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
I think we should focus on the federal government for our OOC politics and thus the federal government should be powerful. Though I don't think it was more state rights were added to the Constitution, so I guess it's fine as it is? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:39, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
I'm aiming to do several things. Firstly is strengthen the Federal Governments ability to legislate while maintaining the ability of States to make their own laws but having the main thing about States be devolution of certain policies and spending. However the second part of that is more of policy than what the constitution will be. I'm also going to make courts actually operational, so that they can actually deal with things. Further I'm simplifying elections so that while we still have all the positions that an effective democracy needs, they will normally be decided by one or two elections and will have methods of replacing or substituting people should they become inactive so we don't have stagnation because one person is occupying a position and they aren't around anymore. HoffmannKunarianTALK 17:13, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
Delegates sign-up
I'm assuming that everyone here wants to control delegates, if so, please indicate from which areas you would like to represent delegates so that we can start assigning delegates for the actual convention in the halls. HoffmannKunarianTALK 05:56, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
I would be up for Beaverwick, North Kings, and parts of Newhaven, as this is the general geographic area that Dirk Brandt came from. Thanks, Dirk BrandtReximus55 07:13, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
Oceana of course. --OuWTB 09:34, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
TI, Oceana (Hurb if possible) and maybe NC. HORTON11: • 13:01, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
I want, Noble City and Truth Island, because I have lot's of ideas, cultural, historic and more! Traspes - Dianna Bartol 14:57, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
Right, I'll start working out who gets what. Also the more places you select, the more spread out across these your delegate numbers will be. I'm going to be going for Sylvania, Clymene, Seven and South Kings btw. HoffmannKunarianTALK 18:26, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
Plains for me please. --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 14:51, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
Self-determination for Truth Island
This is one of the main things I'd like to see discussed here, you can see some of the ideas at Talk:Truth Island self-determination. Essentially I'd like to see an arrangement for autonomy for Truth Island within Lovia. We might have to review the arrangement of power, rights and responsibilities for the states but for now I'd like to see a 5+1 arrangement. As an OOC reason this would bring about more things to work on (thus activity) and IC an increase (though not immediately of course) of revenues and thus more funds for Lovia to work on the postwar recovery. HORTON11: • 16:05, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
When you see the time table there will be a section for this discussion. I have a plan that would give us a solution preferable to all. Autonomy within Lovia is not right. That's essentially being a State, which causes a million more problems than it fixes. And if Truth Island can be a state then Discovery Isle can, South Kings or Philosophers' Isle. This will cause endless problems and is unnecessary to give Truth Islanders the autonomy they want.
To be clear THERE SHALL BE NO 5+1 ARRANGEMENT. It will NOT increase activity for Lovia as a whole, it will not increase funds for Lovia. There is a lot of delusion about the idea of Truth Island Self-determination. Self-government is understandable, wanting to try and open your doors to gambling mega-corporations is not. First of all why would Truth Islanders want that, they have a long held tradition of an affinity with their local nature and your "off-shore" solution is just as wrong, no business would want to fund that and no business can get the massive incomes you are suggesting.
Taxes will not suddenly leap if Truth Island becomes completely autonomous. Instead it will most likely slump and decrease, after all Truth Island will have to generate its own cash (from a population that is certainly not rich) to spend. Lovia will not be subsidising them and I can guarantee when looking at a much larger, low tax, high tech nation like Lovia (minus TI) and comparing it to a tiny (They have 5000 less than population), high tax (to fund any basic level of spending), low tech (tourism and hotels are not technology) autonomous island like TI that business will jump to Lovia every time. The only way Lovia (and Clymene) might benefit is by putting up a toll on the bridge so that when people arrive in Noble City and take the road to Newhaven then the ferry to Sofasi and cross the bridge, Lovia will get some money.
The idealistic, separatist influenced dream of a magically prosperous Truth Island will not materialise. But my solution will give you the self-rule and ability to generate that extra activity without the negatives of having to take responsibility for yourself (which I state again, is really difficult when you are a tiny nation with very few taxpayers).
My solution is simple and easy to handle. It will involve creating a subdivision known as an autonomous territory. It will be within the state of Clymene but will sacrifice representation in the State Council and votes for the Governor in return for self-rule, its share of the devolved funding and the freedom to create its own by-laws instead of taking on those made by the Clymeni State Government. HoffmannKunarianTALK 18:46, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
Discovery Isle, South Kings, Philosophers' Isle - Truth Island does not need to be a state, and autonomy within Lovia will not amount to statehood nor anything above a state. But I'm all for autonomy for the areas you mentioned if it is wanted. With regards to "endless problems", remember these wise words [by Hannis]: A solution to a nonexistent problem is a problem in itself.
5+1 ARRANGEMENT - Of course it will bring activity. There would be much to create, from local figures to public services, new companies and more. Funds can be increased by a lowering of taxes in the island, introduction of eco-tourism (as nature and the environment are important locally), further imrpovement on the current tourist sites in Adoha and basing online gaming in the island, which can create significant revenues from abroad.
Taxes will not suddenly leap - They won't, but tax revenues passed onto Lovia will. Truth Island could very well generate it's own funds but I'm not looking for complete isolation for Lovia. The island should be able to have modified tax and financial/business laws to attract investment and funds and at the same time a portion from those would passed on to the federal government.
I get where your concerns come from but a lot of it is just plain hooey and misinterpreting and misunderstanding some of the ideas I'm proposing. I wouldn't mind your proposal, though, but we'd need to establish a framework where Truth Island can have it's own legislature (as they'd no longer have representation in Sofasi) to pass regional laws and the ability to manage their internal affairs somewhat like a state. HORTON11: • 19:11, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
I want to give those areas autonomy but not as effective states.
It will not bring activity. You cannot boost the activity of an entire wiki by focusing on a single island with 5000 people. You are effectively ignoring the rest of the wiki and saying that as long as one area has activity the wiki is active. And public services? new companies? why do these have to be limited to Truth Island? or is this a vanity project of yours?
Further this statement makes no sense: "Funds can be increased by a lowering of taxes in the island" - you plan to increase the money you have by decreasing the money you get... you do also realise that there is no incentive to go to Truth Island over Noble City or any other more populated area of Lovia. Also tourism is already maxed out and what money will you use to invest in Truth Island's tourist sites? Who will you tax? You've said you're going to have less taxes but spend more, in other words you want to rack up debt and make everyone else pay for it.
Also "basing online gaming in the island, which can create significant revenues from abroad". How? please explain? Firstly you can't base online gaming in one place really and why would online gaming be in Truth Island when it could be in a place with a better connection speed like NC or Newhaven or Sofasi? And I don't know how you were expecting to gain revenues from it either.
You say Truth Island could generate its own funds but don't say how. You will ultimately have to raise taxes on the poorest and most vulnerable because if you raise taxes on the rich you ruin your idea of this business friendly investment island. I don't want that, I want the poorest to get the biggest break and I want to use the wider Lovian economy to help build up Truth Island and other debilitated regions but we need to work together. I can give you the autonomy and you can build up Truth Island without breaking the back of your people and without scaring away the business you wish to attract.
On my proposal, I'm glad you are on board and I agree about the framework I'm already writing up proposals and will put up the time-scale for debates and votes. Truth Island will be able to manage their affairs to a greater extent and will certainly have control over taxes in its territory (minus the federal taxes) and so will be able to lower its taxes in comparison to other parts of Lovia which will give you your investment friendly environment.
I really look forwards to getting this set up. And to be clear I've also worked out how to keep this nice and simple so we can return to a simpler, more active but also more organised government. HoffmannKunarianTALK 21:00, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
Did I say I was only going to focus on Truth Island? It may be the are of most interest at the moment, but it's definately no the only one, if you've read other ideas of mine. And it will bring activity and will extend to all of Lovia.
Lower taxes and business incentives will attract businesses, it's only logical, and anyways the target is mostly towards online business/commerce/services, so it won't be big box stores. There will be less taxes I should hope, but whoever said we'd be spending much more. Sure it might be a little more at the start but incoming revenues and of course federal aid will balance out spending.
Place with a better connection speed? - In the British Isles online gambling is mostly based out of Isle of Man and not London or other big cities. Revenues from that would be allowed through licensing companies and direct gambling companies from within Lovia. And I'm sure Truth Island has connection speeds comparable to the rest of Lovia; it's not some remote or backward little island.
You say Truth Island could generate its own funds but don't say how - I've mentioned it a few times already, actually, through ways such as online business and eco-tourism. Gimmicky ideas such as legalizing certain other things could further attract people and money. Now, the current idea I have, as stated previously is to keep low taxes, as to attract, not scare away investors and business and to help the average citizen, not break their back. The only expenses incurred might be towards improving public facilities, setting up a local police, just straightforward services. As I have read about so much, business will bring in more business and the trickle-down effect will bring prosperity; I might not agree completely with these ideas but if economists see that they work we must give it a shot. The poorest will get the biggest breaks and I hope Lovia will assist in the development of the island as in other areas, but as you so smartly said before, I'll need your cooperation on this. You can't always be pessimistic and we need to give these ideas a chance to function.
Time scales- we can go ahead with the proposed timelime I added on the self-determination talk page, though it will need to be modified and dates brought up if you want to speed things up. HORTON11: • 21:37, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
I have heard few other ideas that extend interest across Lovia and besides we first need to start fixing the issues that will harm Lovia in the long run, this will be one of them and we can carry out further great reforms that will generate activity as well!
Lower taxes will only be achieved with the backing of the much larger and more diverse Lovian economy and cannot be achieved as a lone island. Further business incentives are great right up until you realise that you cannot raise the funds alone and will need as I say again the backing of the Lovian economy to be able to implement incentives at any level.
Also online business will not want a place without all the utilities of a place like NC, Hurbanova or Sofasi. Further the Federal Aid you hope for will not be at the level you want it unless Truth Island is within Clymene and has the population weight there to gain any reasonable chunk of the devolved budget.
Your allegory in the UK is misplaced. Those industries are based in the Isle of Man because it is a tax haven (which actually means just stupidly low taxes not a lack of them) and the UK certainly isn't. Truth Island cannot be a tax haven because Lovia is to a good degree still effectively a tax haven. And while Truth Island might have comparable speeds, it will not have the fastest as it is simply not populous enough to merit being the pioneer for faster speeds. And that would be a business standpoint, not a political one.
Firstly, if you are within Lovia there is very little to "legalise" and secondly if you are within Lovia no separate police. Also this must be the first time a socialist is advocating trickle down economics. I believe we can work together but without staying within Lovian and with Clymene, you will miss the population weight Clymene gives you to truly grab the federal funding you want to make all these ideas possible. You can expand gambling, you can expand online business and you can increase tourism but it will be as an autonomous territory of Clymene not as an effective state.
Misunderstanding. The time-scale I talk of is the time-scale for this convention. HoffmannKunarianTALK 19:23, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
Again I am not seeking an effective state so please dispense with that argument already. And on your trickle-down response, I'm not a socialist. My personal views are broadly leftist to center left. HORTON11: • 14:52, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to comment that I strongly dislike the idea for Truth Island (as well as autonomy in general, including for Oceana, etc.) for no rational reason and would be grateful if it were abandoned. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:41, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
Why? You seem to just oppose this and other issues just to oppose them. Granting autonoy to certain areas or giving expanded powers within a reworked constitution is the way forward for Lovia, as evidence in the past months. HORTON11: • 17:33, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
I know! And I feel like it might indeed increase activity, but it just feels wrong. And I know I oppose stuff randomly for no reason. But as I said, I just don't really like the idea. It's not really clicking for me. I think the main problem I have is the lack of precedent. It seems so random to just suddenly have all these self determination movements. Why would Truth Island want autonomy? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:36, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
I think Time has a cynical outlook, which is good really. He doesn't support things because they are popular but rather what he thinks is right. It's something I've always respected of him, and its why when I have the chance I've tried to vote for him. That point aside: We have lots of peoples who feel disgruntled and different and occasionally talk about running their own affairs. Oceana is the biggest of these, but they are luckily a State and so that problem is easily solved. Then you have the smaller issues like the way that the rest of Sylvania doesn't like the weight NC has in their State over them; the way that the people of Pool and Shepby feel that they aren't Sylvanian but Pudlian or Shepbeian due to their history as a vital point of internal trade; Or the way the Russians on Philosophers' Isle feel they are lorded over by the Americans of Kinley and historical issues grate that more; And lets not forget the Southern Kingsers who tried to create their own State in rebellion against what they viewed as a Newhaven elite. These all have a deep history and background. Then Truth Island has, what? Nothing really, apart from a few recent things but that's still pushing it a bit. I want an integrated history and culture that comes up with a logical pathway from colonisation to this move towards self-determination before I can back anything. HoffmannKunarianTALK 03:34, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
@Time: You should certainly sign up for delegates then. I'd love to have your voice in this debate.
@Horton: I still support the autonomy for the various areas BUT I want to see some real actual development of Truth Island before ANYTHING is devolved. I'll help out, as I know the history of Lovia and can give you some pointers and advice (as well as help you avoid anything that runs against the official history) but unless developments happens on the backs of others then its really going to be hard to support this idea. HoffmannKunarianTALK 18:51, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
Well feel free to help out on work in Truth Island. Much of the expected development in relation to the island would be done after autonomy is granted, or in preparation for it, though we could create a local legislature, health and education services etc. in advance. One further idea I had (a while back actually but had forgotten) is to produce coins and stamps for collectors. We issue them in the name of Truth Island and get some private mint like Pobjoy mint to produce them. Most of the small autonomous territories issue those to generate funds. Of course this will not mean a separate currency, as the coins would be in (Lovian) dollars. And same goes for Lovia. I can make stamps and coins can be minted to generate funds. HORTON11: • 12:54, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
Development cannot be government institutions alone. I would like to see historical and cultural development before any autonomy is granted. I'm happy to help with this. We won't be making anything in advance btw, that's a tad assuming. Also those coins, notes and stamps are fine as long as they are not actual copies of Lovian coins, notes and stamps. You won't be allowed a private print for the Lovian Dollar because that like making TI an effective state raises a million more problems than the good it creates. HoffmannKunarianTALK 13:18, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
The historical and cultural will certainly occur beforehand, I have a few ideas in mind. Coins, notes and stamps - Of course not. The coins and stamps would simply be the Lovian dollar with Truth Island's name on them; they wouldn't replace the Lovian dollar on the island as these are purely commemorative collectors issues and wouldn't see circulation. As for the stamps, we may want to implement those as well as a postal service for Lovia, seeing as we have none. HORTON11: • 13:31, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic, as soon as that starts going I'll be over to chip in. They shouldn't be mistakable for an actual dollar or that could cause issues and might be considered forgery. Other than that, go nuts sounds like a cool idea. Also on the Lovian postal service. Again, not something for now, something for after this. HoffmannKunarianTALK 13:33, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
A common circulation coin is unlikely to be ever confused with a collector's coin; see right. Circulation coins (like our dollars and cents) are mostly cupro-nickel, struck in large quantities and made for regular use. and collectors coins are struck in precious metals and made in proof or other higher-quality strikes. HORTON11: • 13:52, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'm going to have to side with Time on this one unless you really pull some good reason for the autonomy. Currently, the culture, history, population, and land area provide no reason for statehood or autonomy. If you can put together a good reason as to why the autonomy should be granted, I might support it, but the island will need culture and history in order for me to consider. --QZ - RWCP 02:34, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm glad we have rationality here. I've been wondering where this has come from and so seeming as everyone else seems to be asking the same questions as I am, I'll stick with the "no history, no culture, no reason = no autonomy" stance that I've formed. Also welcome the to discussion QZ! Long time no see! :D HoffmannKunarianTALK 03:19, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
And the other, public housing
Not only cause of the displacement and destruction caused by the war, but I think it's good to have affordable housing for low-income families and individuals. HORTON11: • 16:12, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
This is the place for constitutional discussion but this needs to be discussed once we are operational as a government again. Until then we really can't do much. But yeah, not here or now. HoffmannKunarianTALK 18:24, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Kunarian here. --QZ - RWCP 02:37, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
Kingdom?
So we all know that the the king is a figure head in Lovia. This topic is not part of the constitutional convention, but are we going to keep Lovia as a Kingdom under the new constitution or completely wipe the role of king and leave national representation up to the Prime Minister and Speaker? IMO, with a smaller user base, the king may be unneeded, but American bias may be a part of that. --QZ - RWCP 02:43, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think Americans are a minority here. Personally I'm fine with the situation as it is. It provides a nice cultural element, I think. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:06, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
Same, culturally it's a big part of the nation and has given us an extra bit of flavour to our nation. Also (on an IC basis) the King (or Queen for that matter) serves the role of being a unifying figurehead, they don't have any real power and provide a bit of tourism revenue. There's no reason to change what is one of the few areas of the Lovian government that has never produced any real problems. HoffmannKunarianTALK 03:23, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
Without making any explicit statements on behalf of PL, I think that republicanism is preferable as compared to monarchy, even if it is constitutional monarchy. Privelege based upon inheritance is naturally wrong, and I think most people get that.
Additionally, the monarch (I believe) gets money from the state, which is also wrong. Is it a part of our culture? Yes. Should we pay for it? No. Dirk BrandtReximus55 02:23, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
This is not a political convention, this is a constitutional convention. Party politics should be left at the door. Additionally you must consider IC and OOC. OOC there's no good argument for ending what is a great addition to the wiki that creates opportunities to create content (one type of this being the debate around monarchy).
On the IC side: Saying privilege based on inheritance is wrong is like saying that people shouldn't be allowed to inherit their parent's business. Because that's about the equivalent within Lovia, because the Monarch inherits responsibility rather than privilege. Does the Monarchy have special powers or protections? no. Does the Monarchy have the duty to be the best representative of this nation and act in a manner that benefits the Lovian people? yes.
As for the money. No, we do not give the Monarchy one dime. They have their own businesses (tourism being one of them) and maintain their own finances and pay their own taxes. To be honest they should probably be paid a salary at the least for what they do but we don't pay them. Ours is the most cost effective (if also poorest and least lavish) in the world. HoffmannKunarianTALK 08:09, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
How we could do devolution?
I have had an idea that could make the devolution issue much easier. Currently I'm writing up my proposals for each section and thought of a way we could simplify things without losing the level of devolution we have.
We could have Members of the Congress elected on a State by State basis (at least on an IC basis, OOC would need to be worked out) and if you wanted to make a proposal for one (or more) State only you could. Then debate would be allowed, and could include everyone, but voting on that would only include the MotC elected for that State which it concerns. This would eliminate State Councils while keeping the mechanism they fill, to create State laws and to have discussions and make decisions on State issues.
Further possible simplification could come in the form of eliminating State Law Books and instead having each Act in the Federal Law contain a bit that indicates the jurisdiction of the Act in question. for instance this:
Article 12 - Educational Boards Act
Extent ( C + K + O + Se + S )
An educational board is a registered organisation that creates curriculums for schools and is responsible for the testing, examination and marking of the students learning their curriculums and then the distribution of the results. They are also granted the power to award Lovian Certificates of Education (LCE) and Supplementary Lovian Certificates of Education (SLCE) to students.
Educational boards may award LCE's and SLCE's to students with an assigned grade attached to the certificate.
A Lovian Certificate of Education is a full course in a subject, ensuring that the student learning the curriculum related to the LCE understands the full knowledge of the subject over the full time of the educational level it is at.
Grades assigned to LCE's are related to the percentage achieved in the combined tests, examinations or coursework of the subject.
Pass grades are as follows:
...
This would be the best solution because it would also allow us to create special laws that can cover certain States and further it would allow us to give the role of Governor more meaning again. Comments please! HoffmannKunarianTALK 23:35, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
Would the congressional seats be based on population or divided equally? This sounds like another Connecticut Compromise to me... --QZ - RWCP 01:42, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
I'm strongly against the existence of any OOC state council-type entity. I think laws should only be debated and passed by our federal legislature (all 100 members at once, no separate MOTCs for states). But I think if in the federal law there are provisions for governors and local government (maybe?) to do some policymaking, that would be good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:52, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to go with an evolution policy from here on out and say that all laws should be passed in federal government and states will be given rights to policies and some small interpretation. All state governments - gov and dep gov IC and OOC and a council only IC. --QZ - RWCP 02:19, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
I'm very much contra to abolishing state laws. --OuWTB
To address every reply:
@QZ: population: That debate would need to be had. I see two viable formats as having 20 seats for Sylvania and 20 for Seven would be completely wrong. Firstly having it simple proportional and secondly (the preferred way and more nationally proportional), having it in proportion to those who voted. For example if there were 100 votes cast and 20 of those were in Seven, Seven would get 20 seats while if 30 of those were cast in Oceana, Oceana would get 30 seats and so on and so forth.
@Time: It wouldn't be an OOC state council. It would fulfil your wish of having everything done in Congress while compromising and allowing state laws to be created without adding another layer of legislatures. Also we must assign responsibility within this constitution to each level of government. That means that we cannot just say "Federal law" we must define what the Federal level (Congress, Ministries) does and what the State level (Governors, Councils) does and perhaps what minor functions should be given to a (possibly completely IC) local level. By being clear in the responsibilities we avoid future issues in who does what. This is like the way we have assigned management of planning to Governors, who have control over what is and isn't built within their States.
@Oos: Same, I was just trying to make a proposal that would allow us to have State Laws but do things in a much flatter manner like QZ and Time claim to want.
I think I will go with my original idea which was not this one and propose ideas around that. The original idea would be much similar to the current situation but with streamlining and a clear list of defined responsibilities attributed to each level of government. HoffmannKunarianTALK 22:55, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the federal government writing "this power is devolved to the states" in a law in regards to certain policies that we would like to be devolved. A clear list is also fine but I definitely don't think devolution is that great or that it should be a focus. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:00, October 31, 2014 (UTC)
I personally disagree with TimeMaster on this one. Devolution, I think, is important to the Lovians from an IC perspective. The problem, I think, is the reconciliation of the OOC difficulty of having devolution with the in-game desire for devolution.
Personally, this proposal seems like a good solution to me. The Federal Government sets up what states are expected to do, and then allows Governors to take care of matters for an individual state. I do think there needs to be some check on Governor power, however, or else we end up like the 1960s States' Rights movement in the US with the States checking Federal progress in important areas. Dirk BrandtReximus55 00:23, October 31, 2014 (UTC)
Halls
Article 1 - Sovereignty
This Article will roughly replace Article 1 of the current constitution.
Questions to be answered:
Where does sovereignty lie/What is the sovereign body within Lovia?
What are the fundamental declarations of Lovia?
Who is the head of State?
Through what method can Lovia be bound to a foreign treaty?
I will be proposing an idea later today hopefully and we could look at what alterations we need to do for a majority agreement amongst the delegates. HoffmannKunarianTALK 11:20, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
A republic might be a better form of government tbh, but I'd probably still support maintaining a monarchy, especially as the monarch can be a unifying figure when compared to squabbling politicians. In many countries the king or queen is more popular than their prime ministers and no elected official could ever do that. HORTON11: • 14:07, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
1) Lovia is sovereign. The states and Truth Island are all parts of the nation. They are not independent from the national government.
2) What does this mean?
3) I'm fine with keeping a king as long as we maintain a Prime Minister for anything that affects the government and politics. The king should remain ceremonial as he his currently.
4) What are you asking?
5) See 3
--QZ - RWCP 21:43, November 3, 2014 (UTC)
Personally sovereignty should lie with the people and be enacted upon through Congress and the State Governments, just like every other Nation State (except the ones where they are oligarchies/non-democracies)
Look at the current constitution and you'll have a good idea (basically some things about sovereignty and what Lovia is and should have)
King, like in the previous constitution shall be head of state. Head of government shall be the Prime Minister, like before.
As in, can the Prime Minister sign Lovia up to a foreign treaty that commits Lovia to A, B or C or should Congress or another method be taken.
This relates more to how succession and other monarch matters should work.
I will be proposing an idea later today hopefully and we could look at what alterations we need to do for a majority agreement amongst the delegates. HoffmannKunarianTALK 11:20, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
Oceana has fought a long time to achieve its independence and we are not willing to give it up; let that be clear :) --OuWTB 12:12, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
Sevener (minus Kinley) delegates cheer "And we shall not be giving away our hard won rights either!" says a bearded Severner. HoffmannKunarianTALK 12:25, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
Just a vague idea, which will probably not be workable. But, what if we make some kind of a reward system? If a state shows responsibility in that it can take care of state matters, it will receive more devolution, and if a state becomes less active, it loses it. --OuWTB 12:14, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that we move to give Truth Island autonomous status and we discuss on other areas seeking autonomy. HORTON11: • 13:56, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
No State for Truth Island. It shall abide by all Federal Laws but shall be given autonomy within Clymene. HoffmannKunarianTALK 13:58, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
For the 50,000th time, I have nevered advocated statehood for Truth Island. HORTON11: • 14:05, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
Full autonomy would be that. I will only agree to autonomy within Clymene at most and still I need to see more consistent development of TI. It started off well but seems to have slowed. HoffmannKunarianTALK 14:11, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
Autonomy =/= statehood; powers will not be the same. Do keep in mind that I have other things to do as well, such as going with Abe Lincoln and Pocoyo to a halloween party, so I can't be working on Truth Island 24/7. But I'm still working on Truth Island; next up will be to move forward with energy plans. HORTON11: • 14:23, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
No. That shall not happen. Moving forwards means working on the history and culture. Energy is something for governing bodies to sort out and after this convention. HoffmannKunarianTALK 14:35, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
FINAL PROPOSAL
Article 2 - Structure of Administration
The Kingdom administrated on different levels.
The federal level which encompasses the entirety of the Lovian territory.
The federal level holds all competencies not held by the states or local level.
The state level which consists of five states: Clymene, Kings, Oceana, Seven and Sylvania.
The territories of the states are as follows:
Clymene covers the islands of Clymene and Truth Island. Its capital is Sofasi.
Kings covers Kings Island. Its capital is Newhaven.
Oceana covers the south-west of Peace Island extending to the southern side of the Emerald Mountains and along the centre of the Beaver River to its mouth and the isles of Frisco and London. Its capital is Hurbanova.
Seven covers Adlibitan Island; American Island; Bird Island; British Island; Libertan Island; Love Island; and Philosopher's Island. Its capital is Kinley.
Sylvania covers the north-east of Peace Island extending to the northern side of the Emerald Mountains and along the centre of the Beaver River to its mouth and Discovery Isle. Its capital is Noble City.
The state level holds the following competencies:
The organisation of primary, secondary and further education.
The management of economic investment.
The planning and organisation of neighbourhoods and rural areas as well as regulation of building style.
Including the naming, organisation and maintenance of urban parks, public places, streets and markets.
Including the construction, deconstruction and re-organization of neighbourhoods.
The Congress may overrule the state's decision by a normal majority. From the moment a bill to overrule that decision has been proposed to Congress, the state cannot proceed with the construction, destruction or re-organization. If the decision is in effect overruled by Congress, the state may not construct, destroy or re-organize neighbourhoods for thirty-one days.
The state may not grant a hamlet or village a second neighbourhood.
The state may not grant a town a fifth neighbourhood.
The creation, organisation and maintenance of public housing.
The organisation and maintenance of fire, health, waste and water services.
The protection and maintenance of historically and culturally important properties and sites.
Including the naming, organisation and maintenance of natural areas, environmentally significant places and culturally significant monuments that are not protected by the federal government.
The organisation and maintenance of museums and libraries.
The creation, naming, organisation and maintenance of roads (with the exclusion of highways), parking facilities, waterways and footpaths.
The organisation and maintenance of employment services.
The organisation and maintenance of transport services.
The creation, organisation and maintenance of state departments, organisations and corporations to carry out the competencies that the state must perform.
Any department, organisation or corporation which carries out the competencies of the state but also takes part in activities beyond the competencies of the state must be ratified by Congress within two months. Should Congress fail to ratify the department, organisation or corporation then it may not carry out the competencies of the state.
Informing the state population of the policies of the state government.
Advising the Congress and Ministers on issues related to the state.
The local level which is divided into regions, municipalities and autonomous territories within each state.
Each subdivision has different methods to be created, altered and destroyed:
Regions may be created, altered and destroyed freely by the state governments.
Municipalities may only be created and altered by a petition by a state government to the Congress. Municipalities may freely be destroyed by the state government.
Autonomous territories may only be created, altered and destroyed by a petition by a state government to the Congress.
All subdivisions on the local level share the following competencies with the state level:
The organisation of primary and secondary education.
The organisation and maintenance of museums and libraries.
The creation, naming, organisation and maintenance of roads (with the exclusion of highways), parking facilities, waterways and footpaths.
The organisation and maintenance of employment services.
The organisation and maintenance of transport services.
The creation, organisation and maintenance of local departments, organisations and corporations to carry out the competencies that the local subdivision must perform.
Any department, organisation or corporation which carries out the competencies of the local subdivision may not take part in activities outside those competencies.
Informing the local population of the policies of the state government.
Advising the state government on issues related to the local subdivision.
In addition municipalities hold and share the following competencies with the state level:
The organisation of further education.
The management of economic investment.
The planning and organisation of neighbourhoods as well as regulation of building style.
Including the naming, organisation and maintenance of urban parks, public places, streets and markets.
The creation, organisation and maintenance of public housing.
Informing the municipal population of the policies of the municipal government.
Advising the state government, Congress and Ministers on issues related to the municipality.
In addition autonomous territories hold and share the following competencies with the state level:
The organisation of further education.
The management of economic investment.
The planning and organisation of neighbourhoods and rural areas as well as regulation of building style.
Including the naming, organisation and maintenance of urban parks, public places, streets and markets.
Including the construction, deconstruction and re-organization of neighbourhoods.
The Congress and the state government may overrule the autonomous territory's decision by a normal majority. From the moment a bill to overrule that decision has been proposed to Congress or the state government, the autonomous territory cannot proceed with the construction, destruction or re-organization. If the decision is in effect overruled by Congress, the autonomous territory may not construct, destroy or re-organize neighbourhoods for thirty-one days.
The autonomous territory may not grant a hamlet or village a second neighbourhood.
The autonomous territory may not grant a town a fifth neighbourhood.
The creation, organisation and maintenance of public housing.
The organisation and maintenance of fire, health, waste and water services.
The protection and maintenance of historically and culturally important properties and sites.
Including the naming, organisation and maintenance of natural areas, environmentally significant places and culturally significant monuments that are not protected by the federal government.
Informing the territorial population of the policies of the territorial government.
Advising the state government, Congress and Ministers on issues related to the autonomous territory.
Voting
Any last queries I need to address before we begin voting? I believe that the above allows centralisation where needed while in combination with a reformation of how State Governments work (making them more action based than bureaucratic) will allow proactive states to really be creative and expansive. HoffmannKunarianTALK 20:54, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
Is still belived this section should be modfied "Autonomous territories may only be created, altered and destroyed by a petition by a state government to the Congress". I would like to see autonomous territories involved in their creation or modification, and again I will reiterate that I don't see the need for having to "destroy" a territory or provide for it. Other than that the rests seems fine enough for now. HORTON11: • 21:03, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
This is an incredibly rough draft, I'll be altering it as we go along.
As you can see there will be five States. As there should be.
Beneath those States will be Municipalities and Regions. These will be largely IC and all of their functions can be done on the State level. Then there are Autonomous Territories, which will have a lot more power over themselves but will be subject to a few State powers to keep them in check.
All Municipalities, Regions and ATs are simply proposed atm.
Obviously we need to change this as I'm sure there will be differing opinions and people will poke holes. Vigorous democracy in action. HoffmannKunarianTALK 14:10, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the need for having regions within our law; they do the same as cities under your proposal. Now, as for the autonomous regions, what yo are proposing seems about ok. THe one thing I'd change is territorial by-law to law. HORTON11: • 14:22, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
We should clearly define the levels of government, and rural areas and municipalities should certainly not be given the same definitions. You cannot have a Mayor for a region. And I am still not sure about giving autonomous regions full on law making power, I think by-laws would work fine. HoffmannKunarianTALK 14:33, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
Having lawmaking power should be part of the autonomous status of those communities. Plus, we'll have the Federal Government to check them in case things get out of hand. HORTON11: • 14:46, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to let the autonomous territory for Truth Island be a matter for the Clymeni State government and Congress after this but the provision and powers will be detailed within the constitution. Therefore we avoid having an actual vote on the situation and are able to focus on drafting the structure. HoffmannKunarianTALK 21:15, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
I think we should create all our autonomous territories within this convention so we have everything well defined. And, please get rid of section 3.1.3. There should be no need to get rid of autonomous territories and it that case it should only be the Federal Government's responsibility. HORTON11: • 13:23, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
I will leave the section in. I believe that the only proper way forwards is to not have the debate for that here. The constitution should be a framework, not a detailed law book, that's what the Federal and State laws are for. HoffmannKunarianTALK 19:27, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
The constitution should be a framework, not a detailed law book, therefore that section should not be included in the constitution. HORTON11: • 19:36, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
No, because it provides a framework to create, alter and destroy ATs. HoffmannKunarianTALK 20:06, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see the need to destroy territories, but I feel as if such power should lie at the federal level, not state. HORTON11: • 20:18, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
Well, activity may drop or people may lose a passion for ATs. The power to carry out the creation/alteration/destroying lies at the federal level but the Congress cannot just do it, the State must petition for it. HoffmannKunarianTALK 20:29, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that as valid reasoning. Seven is fairly inactive but that shouldn't mean we should destroy (should be rephrased?) the state. And what about the territory? Ultimately they should have a say in their future. HORTON11: • 20:33, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
Seven is a state, it has far more to it than Truth Island or any other potential AT has. Also concerning the territory having a say, how should you feel that should be carried out? HoffmannKunarianTALK 21:01, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
We should include some clause giving the territory having final say over changes to status. For example any amendment should be either proposed locally or through congress and have to be approved by both terr. and national legislatures and perhaps with a referendum. HORTON11: • 21:12, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe a territory should be able to hold a State or Lovia to ransom over its status. Also we must not create a mass of bureaucracy. A simple petition, combined with a healthy debate in Congress should reveal whether the it is right to create, alter or destroy a territory. A clause in the competencies of the AT should probably be to advise Congress to the opinions and issues of a territory. HoffmannKunarianTALK 21:16, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
Au contraire, they will not be holding Lovia ransom but we cannot simply allow something significant as the dissolution or changing of a territory without their input, discussion and consent. But honestly, I don't think we need such laws to destroy territories. HORTON11: • 21:22, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
I will consider some solutions that will better include them in the discussion. HoffmannKunarianTALK 21:34, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to make a massive change to this which should keep it more in line with the style of the old constitution and make local level optional as well. However I'm going to leave the responsibilities bit alone and we'll debate more on where things should lie. HoffmannKunarianTALK 15:01, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
I can't support this as it gives far too much power to state governments. The federal government should delegate whichever powers it prefers to state governments. We don't have the activity for at all powerful state governments. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:53, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the subdivisions. The subdivisions seem excessive to me. The nation is not very large as it is. If it were my choice, we would divide the nation in to the 5 states that are proposed above, then let those be divided at two levels below (a city-state-like level, and a city/village level). There is no need to over complicate things. Adding more levels of government also raises taxes, and nobody wants unnecessary tax increase. --QZ - RWCP 21:06, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
The subdivisions are hardly excessive and besides would bring democracy closer to the people concerned. Further they are optional, so if you feel as you do then you can argue in elections for no subdivisions. None are mandated, they are simply provided for. And these subdivisions are essentially what you've just stated: city-state-like aka the Municipality and village level aka Regions. The Autonomous Territory is the only difference, and as there seems to be little enthusiasm I could support removing that provided others would agree.
On the matter of complication, Lovia has never had a problem with different levels of government, we just made the levels of government far too bureaucratic and had few provisions for lack of activity. These issues were not created by subdivisions but rather by how they were governed. We shall have to go forwards and ensure that subdivisions are governed properly in the relevant article. Also on taxes, more subdivisions does not raise taxes. Hardly, especially when most of the time the responsibilities of government are divided between the subdivisions. Some things make no sense being decided on a National level, like naming of streets. Other things simply make more sense to be handed to a level closer to the matter concerned, like business investment funds.
I feel that we should certainly go forwards with at least optional Municipalities and Regions. HoffmannKunarianTALK 15:21, November 8, 2014 (UTC)
It's really only the regional level I have issues with, as I don't think it has separate enough responsibilities and rights from other areas within Lovia. But, if it helps to pass along autonomous territories and municipalies I'd be pro. HORTON11: • 15:29, November 8, 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so some basic freedoms that I believe all men are entitled to:
Freedom of Thought, Speech, Protest, and Boycott
Freedom of Press and Publication without reprisals or fear thereof
Freedom of Enterprise (to create and own/operate a business)
Freedom from Involuntary Slavery
Freedom from Governmental Discrimination on the basises of race, ethnicity, age, religion (or lack thereof), political affiliation (or lack thereof), sex/gender, wealth, sexual orientation or ancestry
Freedom from Governmental Regulation of Labor, Business, or Enterprise (this means no minimum wage, in my book)
Freedom of Movement, of Affiliation, of Association
Some rights that all people are also entitled to (slightly different in that they are less abstract and more legalistic):
Right to Life and Right to Personhood, guaranteed to all organisms capable of developing into human life (that is to say, to include embryos)
Right to fair, public, speedy trial by an impartial jury that will assume innocence until guilt is proven beyond doubt
Right to privacy of one's possessions, except by court order which shall be provided only after the judge has been convinced of probably cause
Right to possess arms necessary for self-defence, and right to organize militarily
Right to do whatever one wishes to his/her body so long as no other person should be harmed as a direct result (ie, no abortion)
Right to run for public office (only for citizens or full-time residents [OOC purposes only])
Now, I am 100% positive that I am missing stuff. No doubt. Here are some things that are currently regarded as rights in Lovia, but I think should cease to be recognized as such:
Right to a Residence (being anti-capitalistic)
Right to Relax and Recreate (as this is already generally accepted, this is only too broad and can be interpreted to mean constitutional right to a certain number of holidays)
Right to Live in Welfare (again, too vague, as it can authorize a constitutional right to healthcare, etc.)
Now, as far as responsibilities of all people go, I think there is just one:
Responsibility to Pay Taxes
But for citizens (and OOC permanent residents) of Lovia, I believe that there are three (main) ones:
Responsibility to Vote
Responsibility to Serve on Juries*
Responsibility to Pay Taxes
Note - * - The exception would be if serving on a jury would be unbearably difficult for an individual, in which case some form of compensation may be considered (but would then have to go to all jurors).
Thanks, and I know this is probably pretty radical. Dirk BrandtReximus55 04:56, November 8, 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely no personhood for embryos. To me, this is like saying that if you are the only person who could donate an organ (say, a kidney) to someone else for them to survive, the state could force you to. Right to Live in Welfare should be kept in some form, and I don't see why you would have an issue with a constitutional right to healthcare if the right did mean that. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:07, November 8, 2014 (UTC)
I'm an American (don't know about you), but our whole political ideology is largely based upon the Enlightenment, wherein it was decided by many (including Locke and Jefferson) that all people were entitled, by God, certain rights and that the FIRST of these rights is the right to life.
Pregnancy is, except in some extreme cases of rape, always invited in, whether knowingly or not. That being said, the mother then has a responsibility to take care of her "guest;" just as it would be murder to kill a dinner guest, it is murder to kill your child.
The state has three primary functions, again, according to Jefferson, that are to protect the rights of all persons within its boundaries, including (but not limited to) life, liberty, and property. The state cannot force you to give an organ, but it can force you to not kill someone. But, this argument is bound to end up polemical. I will just have you know that any state that allows murder in ANY form is despicable.
As for the right to live in welfare, you don't have the right to live in any atmosphere other than the one you have made for yourself. If I am broke and living on the street, I don't have a God-given right to no longer be broke. If a charity or church was willing to help me out (and trust me, those things DO exist), then that is very kind of them. But I don't have a governmentally-guaranteed right to "live in welfare."
As for the right to healthcare, to me, healthcare is just another type of business. Doctors pay tons of money to get to where they are, and therefore they have a reason to expect lots of money in return for services. Furthermore, that is where the economy places the value of such healthcare at. A "right to healthcare" is absurd, and the state enforcing that right would not only be expensive but also immoral, as it would be taking money from some to pay for a service for others. Dirk BrandtReximus55 18:15, November 8, 2014 (UTC)
Lovia isn't America, but that doesn't matter. I don't see how you can ignore a right to healthcare while maintaining there is a right to life. Do you think the existence of life in more important than to be able to life a meaningful life without sickness. The state would pay the doctors for the same reason they pay teachers. Also, I disagree that an embryo is a person and that comparing them to a dinner guest is valid (sex isn't consent to having a baby control your own body for 9 months). You can also ask a dinner guest to leave. But this also doesn't matter as I highly doubt you will be convinced. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:37, November 8, 2014 (UTC)
I also disagree with the idea of a right to education, and therefore disagree with the state paying teachers, let alone doctors. And I agree, it is unlikely that either of us will end up changing our minds, so that isn't really worth arguing too much, except from an IG perspective. Other than that, Lovia was founded by Americans, so there is definitely some respect for American ideals. Finally, Jefferson and Locke are both really important figures regardless of where in the West one is. Dirk BrandtReximus55 21:04, November 8, 2014 (UTC)
Lovia was actually founded by forward-thinking, left-leaning progressive Europeans, and both IC and OOC has followed a lot of European ideas. HORTON11: • 21:20, November 8, 2014 (UTC)
Left leaning progressives? Someone is confused. European ideas =/= left wing. HoffmannKunarianTALK 10:00, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
Ok, let me clarify it for you then if you're confused. DimiTalen, Regaliorum and other early founder of Lovia were atheist socialists, or at least leftists. HORTON11: • 16:23, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
So, Reximus, if I understand your reasoning correctly, you wouldn't mind if a dying man were refused to be taken to the hospital, because, after all, he apparently shouldn't have a right to healthcare. Neither would you care if children are denied their right to go to school and forced to work as overly dumb slaves, because apparently they shouldn't even have the right to go to school. You're making me wonder about your education. --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 09:57, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
Vigorous debate is good but shall we make sure we debate the idea not the person. HoffmannKunarianTALK 10:00, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, thanks Kun for ensuring that this debate doesn't go ad hominem. Just because someone has radically different thoughts doesn't mean that they are stupid.
Now, as far as 4kant's statement goes, I'll provide some basic explanation. First, the claim about education is just a personal OOC belief. I did not suggest that as being removed from Lovian society, just as a response to TimeMaster. To clarify the why, however (as this also pertains to my views on a right to healthcare), I just tend to look to a state of nature to analyze what rights we inherently have.
In a state of nature, if you were to get sick, you would be able to go to a doctor and pay full price for his services, which would hopefully heal you, you could deal with it (and possibly die), or you could have invested in insurance some time ago and then go see the same doctor and pay little for his services.
Nowhere, in a state of nature, are your rights being violated if you do not receive medical care. One doesn't have a right to demand services of the doctor for no compensation. By extension, one doesn't have the right to force all his fellow men in that state of nature to pay the doctor to provide a service.
You see, the main thing that distinguishes my views from many around me is that I tend to try and de-personalize situations, which tend to give us some more or less gruesome results that "civilized" people would prefer to avoid. Therefore, when people say "people are going to die," I don't think so much about them dying as about the people who are forced to give up what is theirs in order for the people not to die.
And, not to turn this into too long of a note, but the key word above was forced. I think people ought to help each other out, but to be forced to do so is (to me) more immoral than to not give help. Thanks for reading all of this.
(TL;DR: +1 @Kun. If we view things purely objectively and in a state of nature, we find that rights to healthcare (and similarly, education) don't really exist and require harmful force to be granted by the state) Dirk BrandtReximus55 05:15, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
How does "people have the right to healthcare" mean "the government will have to force its citizens to pay everything they have just to help that dying man"? That's what you're suggesting, but it's not the truth. It's obvious that everyone should have the possibility to get medical care, i.e. everyone has a right to healthcare. Whether this healthcare is paid by the government, the people themselves, or the health insurances, stands apart from this. --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 06:59, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
Of course people shouldn't be forced to perform things, but surely people have a right or freedom to healthcare. What that means to me in the case of rights is that someone cannot be denied healthcare, therefore either the state or private corporations need to provide and considering that we should probably have freedom from coercion I don't think we can expect private corporations to do things free of charge. Therefore it would be down to the state to provide and down to us to decide whether we want that.
Currently most of our state laws make provisions for healthcare systems whether they are provided by the state or by private corporations. These healthcare systems do the following:
provide a free-at-the-point-of-delivery and immediate, no questions first healthcare system
charge non-inhabitants of the state (both Citizens and non-Citizens)
make provisions for care to be provided independent of wealth or insurance
So really, do we need a right to healthcare? It was not provided for in the last constitution and we have provided a good system with provisions to help the worst off. Personally my stance would be that we don't need a right written in, as we already provide.
P.S. I think that freedoms should be things that are forfeit upon being found guilty of a crime, so keep this in mind when we put things into the categories of rights and freedoms. HoffmannKunarianTALK 10:00, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
I do believe we should include provisions to include healthcare and the right to it, though it is mentioned within our federal law, interestingly. It really doesn't cost us anything to add it plus we're insured in case of potential challenges to it. As to corporations, they wouldn't do things for free unless they'd gain more from that, but they "could" technically in a way provide quote-unquote "free" healthcare, if a hospital or clinic is privately run yet does not directly charge the customer and being paid through national insurance. HORTON11: • 16:03, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
First of all: The mention within our law is completely (quite frankly) crap. It sets out so little and gives no parameters, just like the old education act. Honestly that's one of the first things I think the CNP will reform. We don't need an NHS, as almost all the States have each found correct and appropriate ways of creating an health service which actually is secure and not open to abuse and overspend like the one mentioned in the Federal Law. This is one of the clear examples of States legislating better than central government and using the National Health Service (a prehistoric law and well open to abuse) mentioned to override all the good work done by the States as you are now trying to do is quite frankly backwards.
Secondly we have no national insurance tax. We have income, property and imported sales taxes. We don't need another tax with another name when funding can easily be performed by those three taxes. HoffmannKunarianTALK 20:33, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
Yes, whoever wrote the bill made some grammatical mistakes, but it's part of our law. Now I'm not going to try and supercede what the states have done. I'm going to direct the NHS in providing additional coverage, such as to residents, people traveling abroad and to refund medicine. There's no need to nationalize anything, create federal hospitals etc. HORTON11: • 20:38, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
Not grammatical, but rather structural and strategical mistakes that leave the law completely open to abuse. I suggest you focus more on trying to reform the constitution that governs our entire nation before you pursue ideological policies. HoffmannKunarianTALK 20:51, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
None of this is ideological, you're opposition can be construed to be ideological in fact. My only goal via the NHS is in providing additional coverage, such as to residents, people traveling abroad and to refund medicine. The federal government shouyld realistically have no part in running hospitals or other duties which the states have now legislated for. HORTON11: • 20:56, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
Then why pursue it now when we have more pressing matters? Priorities. HoffmannKunarianTALK 20:50, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
Well I was thinking more in consequence of the recent war. People need coverage and I'm sure there were displaced people and a number of extraordinary circumstances which might have made receiving medical care more difficult. I'm sure we could pass on the responsibility of subsidizing medicine to the states, but at a federal level we'd need to at least help fund inter-state and international medical costs, which are not (fully) subsidized or covered to my recollection. HORTON11: • 21:07, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
I support shorter laws as if we were trying to make realistic laws, they would be dozens of pages long to fit every exception and close every loophole. I also don't understand your problem with the NHS is. Why not unite all the state healthcare services into one national service? We are a nation of 200,000 people and maybe 10 users. Devolution is not only unworkable but is in my opinion bad. A government of just 2-3 people doesn't work. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:18, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
In Canada all the provinces have health care systems, but they cover also residents like me, not only the citizens, and even the people that are six months in BC [1]. I like that, but Canada is very big and Lovia is small, so maybe it's not the more efficent way to do it. Traspes - Dianna Bartol 02:07, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
But maybe, we can change NHS so that it's more similar to a law. So that it says what's the minimum healthcare that the states have to give but it doesn't give healtcare. It's similar to the system of Canada. Traspes - Dianna Bartol 02:35, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
If you guys will recall correctly, we tried healthcare laws awhile back. Seeing as I was the minister of health at the time, things did not go smoothly. We ceased to even pass a law in my whole time serving as minister. For this reason, I do not suggest that we put healthcare in the constitution as it will only slow the process. We can make it top priority after this is over. To put in my two cents, I would say, for the time being, no government healthcare until we can discuss further in a separate forum (although, even then, we all know I'm not much of a supporter of government healthcare). --QZ - RWCP 22:40, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
Just passing through and I saw there was an interesting discussion going on that I could comment on. First of all, my understanding of a Constitution is that it is basically a document describing the role and function of a government. The rights of citizens only come into it where they need to be expressly incorporated to impose limits on the power of the government. A right to healthcare, whether or not it should exist, is probably not something that should be in a Constitution; it's a matter for another debate.
Secondly, there were a few very interesting comments on inherent or objective rights. Human rights do not have objective existence, rather, they've been created to provide some kind of morality in a pluralistic post-religious age. Obviously, in a 'state of nature' there are no rights, not even a right to life. (The closest you can get to justifying a right to education is to say that universal education benefits both individuals and society as a whole; however, there are loads of things that are beneficial to everyone, like internet access or street lighting, that most people would not class as rights.) But, on the other hand, if we were going to run a nation according to a state of nature, then no-one would bother writing a Constitution at all. The solution is to accept that any rights mentioned in the Constitution are created ex nihilo (so to speak) and are not possible to objectively justify; instead they're axiomatic principles that are accepted by all and provide the best basis for constructing a good law and society. --Semyon 16:30, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
Article 4 - Citizenship
This Article will roughly replace Article 3 of the current constitution.
Well, before I get around to opening debate on this issue, I would like to bring up an issue which I feel is extremely important in this current liberal age, and has been brought up largely by the US' immigration policy...
That something is whether citizenship is needed to participate politically or not. Personally, and I think some of the hardliners right-wingers may disagree with me, but I think that all political rights should be extended to permanent residents (which would be wholly OOC, but would also be new users who are not yet citizens) of Lovia, regardless of citizenship.
While some may say that this would result in treason, we could have all voters (before registering) and all elected people (before being sworn in) swear an oath of loyalty and the like something like this:
I, <insert name here>, hereby affirm that I most solemnly swear allegiance to the Kingdom of Lovia, its constitution, democratic processes and institutions, and that I recognize the authority and sovereignty enshrined therein.
OOC i'm a bit iffy on the matter, given that any sudden surge of new short-term users could "disrupt the balancde", if you will. But IC, I might be tempted to agree somewhat with you. If the people are living here long-term and planning to become citizens, they should have some voice, especially as the politicians will decide on issues affecting them. HORTON11: • 20:48, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
So I would say, for IC purposes, citizens, and only citizens should be able to vote. The citizen requirements could be altered (I personally do not have strong opinion on this). I would say owning a legal permanent residence for 1 year could be enough for citizenship. For voting, I would personally say citizen of 24 years of age (though I could work with as young as 18 without much opposition. 16 would be really pushing it imo).
Rights: Constitutional rights, plus voting at 24.
Responsibilities: Follow laws (including taxes), voting (if able), contribute to Lovia (work, buy goods, help community, etc.), common courtesy of others
--QZ - RWCP 01:35, November 12, 2014 (UTC)
Where I said wholly OOC, I meant wholly IC. I'm sorry for the confusion. I personally think that the voting age should be 16, since they can get jobs, drive, and have a number of other priveleges. There are a number of reasons why 16 is better for a voting age, and voting =/= adulthood. Finally, I think that we needn't reform what it means to be a citizen per se, but we need to give the rights to vote to non-citizens. Dirk BrandtReximus55 00:56, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
My Swedish-Dutch mind just wants to say that 18 is the obvious voting age :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 07:18, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Presently, "Any Lovian citizen aged 18 or older may exercise their right to vote in a federal election." I seem fine with what is currently in place. No way is 24 a reasonable age to allow voting. HORTON11: • 14:07, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
I'd say somewhere between 16 and 21. --OuWTB 16:09, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Citizenship should be required for voting. Especially as it is so easy to acquire (which should be made a little harder to be honest, to stop abuse) and is essentially gained by buying a house (never mind a place of permanent residence, which needs to be fixed). However I think that unless a requirement is essential we should leave it to the Federal Law for deciding requirements to be a Citizen. What we should put in the constitution concerning requirements are absolutes that 100% of people can agree on (or at least a very large majority).
I think the oath of loyalty should be part of it. It's important and can be used to hold Citizens to account to betray their oath.
On the right to vote again, 100% against it being given to non-citizens. This is open to massive abuse, citizenship is easy to acquire with relatively little effort, this at least dissuades random voters. 18 should definitely be the age of voting, because simply at this point a vast majority of young people will have a year or two of experience in budgeting and finance as well as life outside an academic environment, which I believe are essential to being able to vote responsibly. We cannot have people the age of 16 voting as most are quite frankly not mature enough and do not understand what they are making a decision about.
I say this as someone who is 19 (OOC obviously) and having worked for 1 year of my life I know so much more than I knew a year ago, it's been the greatest amount of experience I have ever gained. To be honest I am kind of in favour of raising the voting age to 21 but I believe that it is in the interests of the nation to ensure that we have the votes of 18, 19 and 20 year olds because otherwise they will be ignored.
Back in Lovia I hold similar beliefs. 18 is the best age for the balance between two extremes, one which disenfranchises many who have valuable experiences to contribute to the political scene and one which enfranchises those who may be unable to contribute due to massive lack of experience. It is a comfortable centre. HoffmannKunarianTALK 20:27, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Personally I think most 16-17 year olds who do not know what they would be making a decision about would not be voting while those who do would vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:46, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Time is absolutely correct on this one. Poll your (former) HS and see who would vote. It wouldn't be that many, but they would be the people who have a passion for governance. They won't be casting indiscriminate votes, but rather selecting candidates whose policies are the best for them. Furthermore, younger people are less likely to be aligned to a major political party than older people. I understand that this is a whole debate, but many of us are stymied by long-held stigmas of society.
I think its a matter of rights: if you are a citizen, you get to vote. Using this logic, many citizens (all under the age of 18) are disenfranchised by this very constitution. I am personally extremely involved in the largest non-partisan youth-activism group in the US, and this is all from experience dealing with the people with whom I work and whose votes I would trust to at least be coming from the right place - more so than the indiscriminate over-18 populace.
Or, we could tier voting based upon age where 16-year olds get 1/4 a vote, 17-year olders get 1/2 a vote, and 18+ get a full vote, so long as there is a condition that by a certain year in the future (~5 years from now) all 16+ will get a full vote.
I am not too passionate about all IC permanent residents getting voting rights, but I think its a slippery state. Let the records show that PL and I are strongly opposed to the nationalist ideologies of the CNP that would disenfranchise - and deny basic human rights - to those who have yet to secure Lovian citizenship. Dirk BrandtReximus55 23:04, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that you consider it a violation of human rights if non-citizens are not allowed to vote? --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 08:13, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
I think that the obvious compromise here is just citizens who are 18 get to vote... We're all over the spectrum and that's the middle of us. It's also what we're used to in Lovia, and many European countries as well as America. --QZ - RWCP 03:28, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
To answer up a few of your questions...
Yes, 4kant, I do think that it would be a violation if non-citizens couldn't vote so long as they own property. Naturally, property ownership for voting rights also would put us into a slippery slope, but I think that strong constitutional provisions preventing property ownership from being a requirement to vote for citizens would allay this possible fear. This is because the job of government is to protect, in my Enlightenment-era philosophical stance, life, liberty, and property. Clearly, non-citizens (esp. those with property) still rely upon the government to protect these fundamental rights.
As for QZ's suggested compromise, I think that he is missing the mark. He isn't compromising whatsoever - he is merely stating that he will keep it as it is. From what I think people are saying, at least a large minority believe that under-18s should be able to vote. This can, in many cases where 16 year olds are working (and ergo paying taxes), they are taxed without representation. Similarly, they have life and liberty (and sometimes property), and deserve a government accountable unto them. This is an issue at the forefront of modern liberalism, and if Lovia is to continue its historically forward-thinking reputation, giving full voting rights to 16 year olds is a must.
(Turns out once I make one comment, I can't stop myself making more.) An oath of loyalty is very illiberal. The point of democracy is that everyone who is affected by the actions of a government should be represented in that government. It turns out this includes disloyal people (whatever disloyal means: oceana nationalists? republicans? people with dual citizenship?) too, assuming that the disloyal are going to be obliged to obey the law. For the same reason, I agree with Rex that non-citizens should be allowed to vote. As for a voting age, I think that it is inevitably an arbitrary cut-off and don't have a strong opinion as to what it should be, other than it should be the same age at which parents cease to have responsibility. --Semyon 16:48, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
KunarianTALK 21:24, October 22, 2014 (UTC)
00:24, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
00:42, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
KunarianTALK 06:04, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
Dirk Brandt Reximus55 01:39, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
• 
13:01, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
