Neo-Sovereignism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By realcitizen007
#14674275
Neo-sovereignism certainly is a political ideology that is building steam and that should be included in the list of "recognized" political ideologies.

Neo-sovereignists place the individual's sovereignty in a superior position, relative to the sovereignty of the state and intergovernmental bodies'.

It operates in accordance with the principles of the agora, which is by far the most democratic form of all.
#14674278
anasawad wrote:Explain more if you may.


From which perspective or concerning what topic? Neo-sovereignism, like any other ideology, isn't explained in one word or one sentence.

In what context would you like to discuss neosovereignism?
#14674313
anasawad wrote:What does it stands for ?
The economic, political and social principles of it ?.


Neo-Sovereignism and the Economy

The first principle of neo-sovereignism states that “it always starts at the agora” therefore it is not realistic to assume and expect that every community, regardless of size, that applies neo-sovereignism will have identical Conclusions and Guidelines, also when it concerns the economy.

Conclusions reached in one neo-sovereign country or community may not be wanted or may even be opposed and violently rejected in an other. Therefore, determining what neo-sovereignism stands for in relation to economics can only happen based on subjective Guideline drafts proposed by individuals and at the agora.

Guidelines concerning the economy, from The Neo-Sovereignist‘s point of view are suggested to be along the following norms and values.

A true free market system is advised and Conclusions determining the restrictions of the market and the practices engaged in must be minimized and need the agora’s consent.

Taxation in the free market, such as sales taxes and value added taxes, may be undertaken in limited form and with consent of the agora, but, however, can never be imposed on anyone unilaterally, thus, are entirely voluntarily. Doing so would mean the return to dictatorial, tyrannical, republican and monarchical regimes which all have proven to be failed social exercises and this would of course also be in direct contradiction to neo-sovereignism itself. Those contributing to a taxation system must be rewarded accordingly for doing so.

For companies their profits come first, there’s no viable alternative for them. It’s the essence of their existence. It’s the nature of economics. For individuals people may be of greater importance but any company at some point requires human input so even when profits come first, in a large majority of the cases that profit will not be realized without people. This is one of the prime examples why the agora needs to be consulted continuously and why one community’s set of Conclusions will be rejected in an other. And that is perfectly fine and in line with neo-sovereignism’s principles and what it stands for.

----

The above is my own authored text, published on The Neo-Sovereignist website and, thus, is allowed to be republished here in this reply.
User avatar
By AuRomin
#14674523
This sounds like a Libertarian's wet dream.

Please explain the role of the state in Neo-Soveirgnism. (i.e. is there a police force, is it based around democracy, dictatorship, representation, does it make policies, or is there no state?
By Rich
#14674525
realcitizen007 wrote:Doing so would mean the return to dictatorial, tyrannical, republican and monarchical regimes which all have proven to be failed social exercises
Failed relative to what? Tolkien's Shire, the world of Ayn Rand's novel, some fantasy inside your head. Its like the current system has certainly failed when compared with the Communist system of Marxist imagination. But it does rather better against actual real world implementations.
By SolarCross
#14674533
realcitizen007 wrote:Neo-sovereignism certainly is a political ideology that is building steam and that should be included in the list of "recognized" political ideologies.

Yay yet another -ism founded on delusional garbage.
realcitizen007 wrote:Neo-sovereignists place the individual's sovereignty in a superior position, relative to the sovereignty of the state and intergovernmental bodies'.

Superman might have a shot at that but no one else. Sovereignty means "Over" or "highest" - "Rule", "Ruler" or "Law". We all make rules, for example I don't allow people into my house without taking their shoes off first (a whimsy I have picked up from my Iranian wife) but see if the cops came and knocked my door down they will just laugh in my face if I ask them to take their shoes off before coming in. Because they can. They can "over rule" me and my rules because they have more physical power than me. Whoever has the strongest force rules over those with the weaker force. That is politics. Law without force is just someone's ignorable opinion.
realcitizen007 wrote:It operates in accordance with the principles of the agora, which is by far the most democratic form of all.

Markets are great, the highest form of civility, but mere merchants always lose in contests of will with warriors. Throughout all history, all over the world, all serious rulers are warriors or the commanders of warriors. Warriors do not need to ask nicely and trade, they take what they can and don't apologise. The Agora is not the abode of power, the abode of power is the barracks.
#14674549
@taxizen

"Whoever has the strongest force rules over those with the weaker force. That is politics."

That is tyranny, oppression and war, and if indeed it is "politics" in your opinion then it is exactly why communities must (re)start at the agora.

---

@AuRomin
@Rich
@Dagot Ur

Those who undertake the efforts to be engaged in their community, on any level, are of course rewarded for doing so by actively influencing the agendas and the policies. Those who stay home and prefer to watch TV get rewarded with the entertainment offered by the shows they’re watching.

So, the people who go to the agora all have the ability to vote for or against “laws”, which in a neo-sovereign society are called Conclusions. Those Conclusions are then handed to a governance council to oversee the daily implementation thereof. No Conclusion (law) can be unilaterally imposed since the sovereignty of an individual is superior to that of the governance council and/or city or country.

The political system as it is perceived today comprises all political parties and all branches of “government”, of which the latter are all occupied and taken hostage by parties who, when in charge of a government, unilaterally impose their will and punish those who do not comply. Likely the most anti-democratic form of running a society of any size.

With neo-sovereignism there is the agora that decides, or tries to do so, while a governance council is going no where without the consent of the agora and even in such case where a governance council is permitted to act it still won’t be able to enforce 100% or impose unilaterally. Which is why only entirely voluntarily taxation models are fair, suggested and needed.

It is only in serious exceptional cases, such as a murder or other severe crime (which needs to be defined at the agora) that an agora and governance council may enforce in order to serve justice. Obviously each case has to be presented and discussed at the agora every time, no exceptions.

A government simply can’t be given the power to rule independently from the agora (the people), and that’s exactly what we have today in society, on one hand rogue governments and on the other hand countless people who believe that their government can’t be stopped anymore or that it is too dangerous to oppose it.
#14674551
Rich wrote:Failed relative to what? Tolkien's Shire, the world of Ayn Rand's novel, some fantasy inside your head. Its like the current system has certainly failed when compared with the Communist system of Marxist imagination. But it does rather better against actual real world implementations.


If rogue governments and people afraid to oppose them are not symptoms of failed social exercises including the current one we live in then it is not me who needs to revise things. i already done so, hence neo-sovereignism.
#14674554
@taxizen

"delusional garbage"

"Whoever has the strongest force rules over those with the weaker force. That is politics. Law without force is just someone's ignorable opinion."

Mock as you will, fact is that the neo-sovereign ideology will grow and further build steam and there's nothing you can do to stop that from happening.

With your point of view, why should anyone have to care about you when police stormed your house to beat you up because they allegedly can? Why should you in such case be served by a nurse or any doctor at all to fix your face? Yours, according to your standards, is then an "ignorable opinion" and event.
User avatar
By Lightman
#14674565
It is not a "political ideology that is building steam." It's literally something you made up. You are the only creator of neo-sovereignity's lonely Wikipedia page, and all of your citations that use the term "neo-sovereign" are not talking about a political ideology.
#14674610
Lightman wrote:It is not a "political ideology that is building steam." It's literally something you made up. You are the only creator of neo-sovereignity's lonely Wikipedia page, and all of your citations that use the term "neo-sovereign" are not talking about a political ideology.


Show all of us present here the researched documentation that you have that shows that it is not building steam, researched documentation as in for instance the results of an international survey you conducted last night or so on the matter and the email communications with the growing number of persons who support this - or don't, as your case alleges.

Have you contacted all the authors of those references to ask them in what context they used the terminology and what neo-sovereignism means from their point of view? Please share a copy of their responses to your email inquiries here, which you assumingly already have anyway.

And if, as you suggest, I literally made up neo-sovereignism, which I haven't, I'll take the credit - handed to me by you - for it. Thanks!

Now, please dissect the ideology itself, since your arguments above have been refuted.
User avatar
By Bulaba Jones
#14674617
This term is not used outside of your blog and the Wiki entry (slated for deletion) you wrote in the context you describe. It's not a political ideology of any note considering it's a political ideology of one person. The term "neo-sovereign" was of course not invented by you, but it doesn't mean what you are trying to define it as, and it was never a political ideology.
By SolarCross
#14674682
realcitizen007 wrote:@taxizen

"delusional garbage"

"Whoever has the strongest force rules over those with the weaker force. That is politics. Law without force is just someone's ignorable opinion."

Mock as you will, fact is that the neo-sovereign ideology will grow and further build steam and there's nothing you can do to stop that from happening.

With your point of view, why should anyone have to care about you when police stormed your house to beat you up because they allegedly can? Why should you in such case be served by a nurse or any doctor at all to fix your face? Yours, according to your standards, is then an "ignorable opinion" and event.

I don't want to stop it, I don't care about it. It will go nowhere unless you and your buddies can militarise and win the resulting war. But then see, you will have left the Agora and entered the barracks and you will become what you chose to overthrow.

People care and people trade, so whatever the cops do to my face, I might very well find someone to fix it up, hell a cop doctor might even do it. But see asking someone to fix up my face, accepting an offer from someone to fix up my face isn't "ruling" it isn't power. Power is making up a rule that says I have to have my face fixed and if you don't do it your doors will get kicked in. You are not a sovereign unless you can do that.

To be sovereign you need an army (or superman powers) or you are not a sovereign just a poser.

King Louis XIVth had "the last argument of kings" inscribed on his cannons. See he was sovereign because he could throw down military force as his final argument. If all you can do is talk and not kill (and get away with it), if you can't make that "last argument" then you are not and can not be sovereign.
User avatar
By jakell
#14687130
How is 'Neo sovereignism' different from Monarchism, if at all?

Apart from being a bit of a mouthful, if it's no different then it a rather redundant term. I'm rather tired of seeing new terms cropping up everywhere.. I know progressives do this but then they like to look cutting edge, it's a bit strange to see traditionalists doing this too.


ETA: Ok... just read around and it's nothing to do with Monarchism, it just sounds like it might be. Outside of that I can see no use for the idea as it's not too far from over-inflated solipism .
User avatar
By Harmattan
#14687233
realcitizen007 wrote:Neo-Sovereignism and the Economy
(...)
A true free market system is advised and Conclusions determining the restrictions of the market and the practices engaged in must be minimized and need the agora’s consent.

Taxation in the free market, such as sales taxes and value added taxes, may be undertaken in limited form and with consent of the agora, but, however, can never be imposed on anyone unilaterally, thus, are entirely voluntarily. Doing so would mean the return to dictatorial, tyrannical, republican and monarchical regimes which all have proven to be failed social exercises and this would of course also be in direct contradiction to neo-sovereignism itself. Those contributing to a taxation system must be rewarded accordingly for doing so.

The reasons why sovereignty is coming back, and your own contradictions
This above quote is absurd for me: all around the world the pendulum is swinging back towards sovereignty precisely because of the failure of neoliberalism and the limits of globalization and unification.

To be more precise, the strengthening of transnational trade constructions (EU, treaties, informal rules) ended up harshly limiting the national sovereignties, as trade touches everything rather than being a well isolated technicality. Not only this trend voided democracy of its substance (why vote for politicians who are not allowed to fix problems?) but this proved to be economically inefficient and harmful. Indeed the world is rediscovering that a fair amount of a diligent interventionism and protectionism is not only recommended but also necessary (even though free markets should be the default).

Yet you start by attempting to once again limit what electors and politicians can do?! What a strange kind of sovereignist you are, who thinks that electors must reconquer their power to not do anything with it, not change anything from today.


Putting a compensation-based system forward
However I agree that in order to avoid escalation of retaliations between countries, which was often a cause of war, we need compensation mechanisms. This is what we should focus on rather than building constraining treaties and unions. But this poses extraordinarily difficult questions, such as how to define and measure the natural/fair level of a currency in respect to others, what to do about renegades, and relations between enemies who will not compensate each other.
Unity 2020

They want to run with 2 centrist candidates agains[…]

[quote="Rich"]all democracies distinguis[…]

Holes in my Consciousness

Fill in the blank: If a leopard seal is a seal th[…]

I think it goes the other way, in that online tra[…]