open All Channels
seplocked Intergalactic Summit
blankseplocked The Federation Failure
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Saxon Hawke
Intaki Liberation Front
Intaki Prosperity Initiative
Posted - 2007.04.17 06:41:00 - [1]
 

The recital, or premises on which the Gallente Federation is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all the its varied parts, or star systems, into one great whole, under the form of a federation, for all the various and important purposes therein set forth. But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the Federation, together with the variety of its climates, productions and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and politics, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed. This unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be like a house divided against itself.

It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot subsist: in a large one, there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are too great deposits to trust in the hands of a single subject, an ambitious person soon becomes sensible that he may be happy, great, and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and that he might raise himself to grandeur, on the ruins of his country. In large republics, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views, in a small one, the interest of the public is easily perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses have a less extent, and of course are less protected.

What have you rewarded yourselves with from consolidation into one government? Impracticability in the just exercise of it, your freedom insecure, even this form of government limited in its continuance, the employments of your systems disposed of to the opulent, to whose contumely you will continually be an object. You must risk much, by indispensably placing trusts of the greatest magnitude, into the hands of individuals whose ambition for power, and aggrandizement, will oppress and grind you. Where, from the vast extent of your territory, and the complication of interests, the science of government has become intricate and perplexed, and too mysterious for many to understand and observe.

Political liberty consists in security, or at least in the opinion we have of security; and this security, therefore, or the opinion, is best obtained in moderate governments, where the mildness of the laws, and the equality of the manners, beget a confidence in the people, which produces this security, or the opinion. This moderation in governments depends in a great measure on their limits, connected with their political distribution.

The extent of many of the systems of the Federation, is at this time almost too great for the superintendence of a republican form of government, and must one day or other revolve into more vigorous ones, or by separation be reduced into smaller and more useful, as well as moderate ones. You have already observed the feeble efforts of the Federation against the Caldari; with what difficulty did they fail to quell that insurrection; and is not the system of Intaki at this moment on the eve of separation from her?

The reason of these things is that in large free republics, the evil sometimes is not only begun, but almost completed, before they are in a situation to turn the current into a contrary progression. The extremes are also too remote from the usual seat of government, and the laws, therefore, too feeble to afford protection to all its parts, and insure domestic tranquility without the aid of another principle.

Saxon Hawke
Intaki Liberation Front
Intaki Prosperity Initiative
Posted - 2007.04.17 06:42:00 - [2]
 

Does this consolidated republic, in its exercise beget such confidence and compliance, among the citizens of these systems, as to do without the aid of a standing military force? I deny that it does. The malcontents in each system, who are not few, nor the least important, are exciting factions against it. The fear of a dismemberment of some of its parts, and the necessity to enforce the execution of revenue laws (a fruitful source of oppression) on the extremes and in the other districts of the government, requires a violently Pro-Federation forces to be kept on retainer. As such, is not political security, and even the opinion of it, being extinguished? Can mildness and moderation exist in a government where the primary incident in its exercise must be force? Will not violence destroy confidence, and can equality subsist where the extent, policy, and practice of it will naturally lead to make odious distinctions among citizens?

The people who may compose this interstellar legislature from the various interior systems, in which, from the value of its productions, wealth is rapidly acquired, and where the same causes naturally lead to luxury, dissipation, and a passion for aristocratic distinction; where liberty is less respected and protected; who know not what it is to acquire property by their own toil, nor to economize with the savings of industry-will these men, therefore, be as tenacious of the liberties and interests of the more outlying systems, where freedom, independence, industry, equality and frugality are natural to the climate and soil, as men who are your own citizens, legislating in your own system, under your inspection, and whose manners and fortunes bear a more equal resemblance to your own?

It may be suggested, in answer to this, that whoever is a citizen of one system is a citizen of each, and that therefore he will be as interested in the happiness and interest of all, as the one he is delegated from. But the argument is fallacious, and, whoever has attended to the history of mankind, and the principles which bind them together as parents, citizens, or men, will readily perceive it. These principles are, in their exercise, like a pebble cast on the calm surface of a river-the circles begin in the center, and are small, active and forcible, but as they depart from that point, they lose their force, and vanish into calmness.

The strongest principle of union resides within our domestic walls. The ties of the parent exceed that of any other. As we depart from our home systems, the next general principle of union is amongst citizens of the same Region, where acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, nourish affection, and attachment. Enlarge the circle still further, and, as citizens of different regions, though we acknowledge the same national denomination, we lose in the ties of acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, and thus by degrees we lessen in our attachments, till, at length, we no more than acknowledge a sameness of species. Is it, therefore, from certainty like this, reasonable to believe, that inhabitants of the various systems, will have the same obligations towards you as your own, and preside over your lives, liberties, and property, with the same care and attachment? Intuitive reason answers in the negative.

Souvera Corvus
THE PAROXYSM
Session Changes
Posted - 2007.04.17 07:29:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Souvera Corvus on 17/04/2007 07:27:28
An extremely well thought out treatise in my view. It states, far more eloquently than I have been able to up to this point, exactly that which I have sought with others to impress.

I thought this point of particular importance.

Quote:
Does this consolidated republic, in its exercise beget such confidence and compliance, among the citizens of these systems, as to do without the aid of a standing military force? I deny that it does. The malcontents in each system, who are not few, nor the least important, are exciting factions against it. The fear of a dismemberment of some of its parts, and the necessity to enforce the execution of revenue laws (a fruitful source of oppression) on the extremes and in the other districts of the government, requires a violently Pro-Federation forces to be kept on retainer. As such, is not political security, and even the opinion of it, being extinguished? Can mildness and moderation exist in a government where the primary incident in its exercise must be force? Will not violence destroy confidence, and can equality subsist where the extent, policy, and practice of it will naturally lead to make odious distinctions among citizens?


The Federation, in it's insistence on treating the Intaki question with the brusqeness it lavished on the Caldari, is in grave danger of having history repeat itself. It behaves in manner which betrays a concern with territorial integrity over freedom and democracy. It hands the initiative to those forces who would see violent secession and indulges itself in lax corruption. It has become a shadow of it's intended self.

The term 'Federation' cannot be easily applied to such a bloc.

A new approach is needed.




Aria Jenneth
Caldari
Kumiho's Smile
Posted - 2007.04.17 09:42:00 - [4]
 

Mr. Hawke, as much as I am in some degree supportive of the Intaki cause, after reading your extensive and bricklike discussion of your topic, I have, regrettably, only the following to offer:

Quote:
malapropism, noun: the unintentional misuse of a word by confusion with one that sounds similar


Also this ancient and all too apropos statement:

Quote:
Verbosity leads to unclear, incoherent things.


Sir, if the diction in this essay were any heavier it would collapse into a singularity and drag us all screaming into the timeless, crushing hell beyond its event horizon. Eloquence is not the product of 100 ISK words. For the sake of both clarity and sanity, and for the love of the Maker, please speak plainly! You very likely have an excellent point to make, but I can barely see it at the moment through the crimson fog of my headache.

I'm sure that there's a prize awaiting you for the generation of the first text-generated gravity well. Now would you please lighten your wording before it kills us all?

Zagamesh
Posted - 2007.04.17 10:11:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Saxon Hawke
Verbose mass of garbage.


The only thing I could manage really manage to understand from that was that you believe that the Federation has become too large to effectively represent the different cultures and socities within it? I really wouldn't know since trying to read your statement made me want to gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon. Perhaps if you stepped down from your ivory tower and tried to make some degree of sense you could enlighten me?

Souvera Corvus
THE PAROXYSM
Session Changes
Posted - 2007.04.17 11:19:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Souvera Corvus on 17/04/2007 11:20:25
Edited by: Souvera Corvus on 17/04/2007 11:18:32
Inverted intellectual snobbery on behalf of one of the federations reactionaries. Whatever next?

One of the key elements in our species flight to the stars was aspiration. A desire to achieve, to outstrip generations gone before in the quest for understanding and knowledge. Why literary aspiration should be mired in mediocrity escapes me.

But then the ascendance of mediocrity and poor thinking would seem to be the order of the day in the territorially obsessed Federation these days to the cost of its democratic integrity. If those who purport to support the Federation could loosen the mental shackles that corruption and greed have burdened them with, perhaps, just perhaps, the Federation could see it itself clear of the precipice that approaches at increasing speed.

It's all about ideas and the ideas contained within Mr Hawke's offering illustrate the increasingly bankrupt nature of the ideas prevalent in the Federation.

We need a new approach.

In the meantime I shall leave you with this slightly shortened quotation from a member of a group who have my unqualified respect.

Quote:
By all means, lambaste someone for what they say, put forward your own version of events or argue specific points, but to claim something is too long for you and has too many big words is not a criticism of the author or their material but an admission of rank stupidity, poor education and form altering inbreeding.




Jon Engel
Intaki Security and Intelligence
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
Posted - 2007.04.17 15:32:00 - [7]
 

I think the main point he tries to make is that the differences of a multicultural society can hold countless races together from Luminaire.

Seperated by millions of light years, different languages, religion, culture, and economic standards of living it is just not substantialy strong enough for a "beauracratic Republic" to sustain itself.


Sadly, I quit reading it myself after the 3rd paragraph. Im a person who beleives the Federation is a failure cause of many reasons.

The Gallente people themselves are a reason. The manner in which social change takes place within its borders. The reason millions go hungry and yet the gallenteans find a place for countless unskilled Minmitar refugees.

Intaki goes to the raiders, slavers, and crime lords, and Luminaire is known for it's peace and luxuory for the noble lords of Gallente Prime.

Realy, you can repeat yourself over and over, and all youll get is a monsuer, for we gave you space travel and democracy...

Aki Kuroda
Posted - 2007.04.17 16:51:00 - [8]
 

Perhaps the inconstant nature of Gallente fashions now requires even their academics to dress up their language in incomprehensible manners. This assessment, if it can properly be called such, asks more questions than it answers.

I am certain that any educated citizen of the State can provide a lengthy commentary of the failings of the Gallente Federation; if anything, the democratic freedom of information concerning their many, many blunders is one of their more admirable (if naive) policies.

You might say that the Federation is overly bureaucratic; ruled by an unsympathetic, immoderate parliament; enforced by a corrupt, self-obsessed judiciary; and you might well be right. Judging by the content of your words and your personal affiliations, I would guess that you support Intaki self-determination.

What you don't tell us, however, is how you would solve these problems. You can call for a 'new approach' until your throats are hoarse, but you're just one little voice in a sea of Gallentean democracy. Propose something new, or, better still, follow the lead of the State and do something to change the current state of affairs.

Varus Riaz
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.04.17 18:43:00 - [9]
 

That's a lot of words that say nothing. You seemingly throw a lot of baseless assumptions about the nature of the democratic system and the Federation and how they fail, but give no solid example of failure.

It's a bit bad of a time to claim the Federation is failing. We've got freedoms, a strong government, a mobile social class, and now we even have a success the Caldari must grudgingly admit, an economic upturn.

That's right, we're now officially besting the Caldari on the economic front. A 12% increase in the average standard of living and a marked decrease in infant mortality. I'm not a Foiritain supporter, but if he keeps up like this it'll be hard for me to oppose the man.

Welcome to the Federation Hawke, a nation on the rise no matter how ardently dissidents wish for its downfall.

Jack Malus
Gallente
Gladiators of Rage
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2007.04.17 20:13:00 - [10]
 

You describe the Federation citizenry as nothing more than unscrupulous cormorants pillaging their neighbors and the goodwill of others for their own personal gain.

The Federation is such a rich and diverse place that you could probably find examples that fit your narrow conclusions...but your conclusions will be wrong just the same.



Souvera Corvus
THE PAROXYSM
Session Changes
Posted - 2007.04.18 00:23:00 - [11]
 

I thought it addressed many issues. For my own part the key one being that democratic Federal systems are based on the assent of their constituents and their governments is intended to serve their people.

It is not enough to assauge popular dissatisfaction by referring to the Federations budgetary successes or by establishing positions of no movement on questions of self-determination. The point is clear. If the Intaki, or for that matter the Caldari, had been happy with the arrangements of Federal government as practised by the Federation, then secession would not have raised it's oft-times ugly head in either case. As it is, it is folly to continually try to deny that the problem exists by refusing to discuss it. When the blinkered approach then gains the predictably frustrated response of armed insurrection the Federation then responds with barbaric and inhumane levels of force.

How did it come to this?

Moral bankruptcy. It is this that has to be addressed by the Federation if it's people are to enjoy what was promised to them at it's foundation.

How can you possibly say, in a democracy, that the issues which trouble it's people are to be subject to electoral censorship. Democracy is about more than Quafe and brazen holo's....or at least it should be.



Varus Riaz
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.04.18 01:50:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Varus Riaz on 18/04/2007 01:46:45
Originally by: Souvera Corvus

It is not enough to assauge popular dissatisfaction by referring to the Federations budgetary successes or by establishing positions of no movement on questions of self-determination. The point is clear. If the Intaki, or for that matter the Caldari, had been happy with the arrangements of Federal government as practised by the Federation, then secession would not have raised it's oft-times ugly head in either case. As it is, it is folly to continually try to deny that the problem exists by refusing to discuss it.



I think you're being a bit generous towards yourself, Intaki Union, and Intaki Liberation front by claiming to be "the Intaki." The likes of you are very much in the minority, and furthermore seem to contribute quite little to the wellbeing of Placid in the first place.

I'll give Intaki Liberation Front credit, they at least live in Placid. That's more than can be said for most of the armchair secessionists.

And, electoral censorship? What are you on about? I see accusations of moral decadence, suggesting you want censorship laws, and then the next sentence you start attacking censorship in the Federation. Perhaps this isn't so important, as I don't think censorship as the Caldari or Amarr would define it even exists in the Federation.

Finally, the electoral system works. A lot of Gallente like me voted Blaque, but even more Intaki and Matari immigrants voted Foiritain. I'm not happy with the result, but it seems to prove pretty well that there is no electoral preference in the Federation.

Jon Engel
Intaki Security and Intelligence
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
Posted - 2007.04.18 02:18:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Aki Kuroda
Perhaps the inconstant nature of Gallente fashions now requires even their academics to dress up their language in incomprehensible manners. This assessment, if it can properly be called such, asks more questions than it answers.

I am certain that any educated citizen of the State can provide a lengthy commentary of the failings of the Gallente Federation; if anything, the democratic freedom of information concerning their many, many blunders is one of their more admirable (if naive) policies.

You might say that the Federation is overly bureaucratic; ruled by an unsympathetic, immoderate parliament; enforced by a corrupt, self-obsessed judiciary; and you might well be right. Judging by the content of your words and your personal affiliations, I would guess that you support Intaki self-determination.

What you don't tell us, however, is how you would solve these problems. You can call for a 'new approach' until your throats are hoarse, but you're just one little voice in a sea of Gallentean democracy. Propose something new, or, better still, follow the lead of the State and do something to change the current state of affairs.



I have personally proposed a number of attractive alternatives to the current status quo. Other than that, others have given the following.

A council of Idamas as the executive power. With Local and planetary governments being elected by popular vote.

A loose federation of all the colonys encompassing Syndicate and placid with only a military being Universally recognized. (a bit too out there for my tastes)

Alternatives have been proposed by countless. Means to go about it are proposed. A snivveling Achura is not one to talk, as you yourselves allow your home to be ****d by the vile of the vile megacorporation.

Souvera Corvus
THE PAROXYSM
Session Changes
Posted - 2007.04.18 02:32:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Souvera Corvus on 18/04/2007 02:30:26
Quote:
I think you're being a bit generous towards yourself, Intaki Union, and Intaki Liberation front by claiming to be "the Intaki." The likes of you are very much in the minority, and furthermore seem to contribute quite little to the wellbeing of Placid in the first place.


I have never claimed to be a spokesperson of a people or any of those organisations but I'll be happy to dispute your position to deny those same people the right to exercise their democratic priveledges on a question that effects their right to self-determination.

Your position, which has been pantomimed by Strix armaments and many others, is designed primarily to try and put some fibre into an increasingly apathetic Federation. It is achieved, you trust, by repeition of the refrain 'No discussion on the Intaki question'. Nonsense, you risk everything by authoritarian grandstanding on an issue that you should be happy to see being put to a vote.

As I have stated on many occasions,I am in favour of the idea of the Federation and hold it's founding principles to be laudable, I just find it's reality somewhat less than attractive. Don't assume that because an Intaki disagrees with you on the vital questions pertaining to the Federation that he is a secessionist.

Put the Intaki question to plebiscite, if the democratic principle holds true in the Federation and your belief in the position of "..the Intaki..." is credible, then there is nothing to be lost. Should the question go against the Federation then let the negotiations begin. One man's secession may merely be anothers autonomy. You risk, in your haste to deny any dissenting voices, that increasing numbers of dissaffected Intaki see secession as their only option.

There may be a time when I involve myself more directly in the affairs of the Intaki but I have sought and found a different fight at this moment in time.




Varus Riaz
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.04.18 03:11:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Souvera Corvus
Edited by: Souvera Corvus on 18/04/2007 02:30:26
I have never claimed to be a spokesperson of a people or any of those organisations


Well you secessionists like to trumpet about the "Intaki people" and the good of the Intaki people, and how you represent the Intaki.

Quote:
Your position, which has been pantomimed by Strix armaments and many others, is designed primarily to try and put some fibre into an increasingly apathetic Federation. It is achieved, you trust, by repeition of the refrain 'No discussion on the Intaki question'. Nonsense, you risk everything by authoritarian grandstanding on an issue that you should be happy to see being put to a vote.


Nowhere have I said that the ILF and people like you can't discuss the Intaki question. I'm exercising my own right to criticize people like ILF and you.


Quote:
As I have stated on many occasions,I am in favour of the idea of the Federation and hold it's founding principles to be laudable, I just find it's reality somewhat less than attractive. Don't assume that because an Intaki disagrees with you on the vital questions pertaining to the Federation that he is a secessionist.


You advocate secession from the Federation, what am I supposed to call you?

Quote:
Put the Intaki question to plebiscite, if the democratic principle holds true in the Federation and your belief in the position of "..the Intaki..." is credible, then there is nothing to be lost. Should the question go against the Federation then let the negotiations begin. One man's secession may merely be anothers autonomy. You risk, in your haste to deny any dissenting voices, that increasing numbers of dissaffected Intaki see secession as their only option.


Fine with me, let's go ahead and do that. Bring on the vote. I want to see what you people say when the Intaki decide to stay in the Federation. What then? Will we have brainwashed the whole Intaki populace?

Souvera Corvus
THE PAROXYSM
Session Changes
Posted - 2007.04.18 05:07:00 - [16]
 

I am not and have never advocated unilateral secession from the Federation, I have and continue to argue, that the refusal of the Federation and interested paramilitaries to even consider the question is counter-productive to their own interests.

I have and continue to argue, that the Federation isn't currently serving the interests of any of it's citizens, let alone the Intaki.





Dallan Arethi
Gallente
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.04.18 06:37:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Dallan Arethi on 18/04/2007 06:33:15
I suspect, Mr. Hawke, that this could have been written somewhat more clearly and concisely, and in that manner would not have been so frequently misunderstood. However, the question raised seemed to me worth answering, so I persevered. No worse, if far more ancient in tone, than some of the things I had to read for my classes at Caille.

You make a good point about the practicality of centralised, non-tyrannical government in a polity as large and (more importantly) diverse as the Federation. The question I would pose to you, then, is: is the breakup of the Federation the best or even the only answer? It is my personal position that more domestic power needs to be in the hands of regional and planetary governments - it may well have been intended so in the beginning, but the Federation has strayed from the principle that gave it its name along with many others it was founded on. This, I feel, needs to be addressed.

As for you, Mr. Corvus, I would not ascribe Durandal's position on the Intaki question to the Federation as a whole. Censorship and lockstep loyalty are not our way. I would certainly like to know what the polls back home look like on the issue - it surprises me that such surveys haven't been conducted by some interested media outlet. Perhaps they simply haven't been publicised.

Regards,

Souvera Corvus
THE PAROXYSM
Session Changes
Posted - 2007.04.19 23:59:00 - [18]
 

Forgive me Mr Arethi if I appeared to be tarring you with the same brush. It's been a source of frustration to me that there would not seem to be a group in existance that would apply a measure of objectivity to the question at hand. It seems in your example I am wrong.

I am not a confirmed secessionist. I do believe however, that unless some of the issues that have been raised by the discussion of the Intaki question are addressed, or at least considered by the Federation at large, that Intaki secession will become an increasingly bitter pill.

The issues raised by Mr Hawke, as you suggest, are larger than the issue of Intaki autonomy alone although he has framed them in that context. To me, he alludes to what some of the central difficulties are facing the Federation if not always suggesting a solution.

As I have stated in many earlier offerings, I believe that if the Federation continues along it's current path then Intaki seceesion will be just one of a number of problems that it will face. It should start by returning to it's principles in trying to resolve the question of Intaki secession and put it to a referendum.

The referendum in question should deal with the issue of secession but should also encompass the views of the Intaki on Federal policy and government. In the event that the Intaki choose to remain part of the Federation there should be a mandate for change inherent in their decision. Things cannot remain as they are.

The Intaki cannot imagine that secession is the panacea for all of their ills, as the Federation and some of it's less considered supporters cannot imagine that refusing to discuss the question altogether will cause it to disappear.


Jon Engel
Intaki Security and Intelligence
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
Posted - 2007.04.20 23:22:00 - [19]
 

Hmm, more domestic control of local affairs.. You mean a seperate Nation? Bingo, youv nailed it. Now with this free state, we can secure our cultural and religous heritage as well as insure the security and safety of our own people, when the rulers of Luminaire do not.

It isnt about the Federation losing a region and a half. Its about Intaki, plain and simple. The Federation shows little concern about the cries for help. The lackluster funding of local militias, police and Naval presence in Placid, by all means put that ISK towards more narcotics and hookers for Senate meetings and allow local taxation to fund a local Nation.


Dallan Arethi
Gallente
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.04.20 23:50:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Dallan Arethi on 20/04/2007 23:46:48
Originally by: Jon Engel
Hmm, more domestic control of local affairs.. You mean a seperate Nation? Bingo, youv nailed it.


I would appreciate if you would stop misinterpreting me, Mr. Engel, but I can deal with disappointment, so feel free to do as you wish.

To blatantly oversimplify, statehood can be subdivided into two components: sovereignty over internal affairs, and sovereignty over external affairs. Having both is independence, having more of the first than the second is interdependence, lacking both is dependence. Federalism in its purest form is an expression of the second state, which is more what I meant.

Quote:
Now with this free state, we can secure our cultural and religous heritage as well as insure the security and safety of our own people, when the rulers of Luminaire do not.


I would ask you: how do you intend to do any more to "secure our cultural and religious heritage" in a hypothetical Placid Free State than the Federation has done by ensuring freedom of expression and religion, without marginalising its many non-Intaki residents in exactly the way you accuse the Federation of doing?

Or do you even care?

Quote:
The Federation shows little concern about the cries for help. The lackluster funding of local militias, police and Naval presence in Placid, by all means put that ISK towards more narcotics and hookers for Senate meetings and allow local taxation to fund a local Nation.


One further question, Mr. Engel, in the interests of knowing where your priorities are: if someone were to tell you that there was to be a greatly increased presence of Customs police in Placid, would you hail that as a good start in addressing the problems of the region, or would you decry it as an unwelcome encroachment of Federal authority?

Regards,

Jon Engel
Intaki Security and Intelligence
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
Posted - 2007.04.21 21:47:00 - [21]
 

Cultural and religious heritage can be secured throughout time, by not having Federal mandated curriculums, and biased text books. Local control of education, media, and a distancing from Gallente popular culture. Which in my eyes has poisoned the bulk populace of Intaki to a life of hedonsim, and over-indulgences.

Furthermore, local taxation to a local soverign Nation is only way I see equality in a supposed free nation. Why should Intaki taxes go towards funding of projects and social programs elsewhere? Why should our taxation go towards a military whose sole goal is to keep Luminaire safe from the Caldari State?



Ill end it with regards to the drug "crackdown" in Placid. Yes, rampant narcotics dealing and bussiness is a problem in the Region. Howevor, the Gallente Police seem to overlook the root of the problem. That problem is Gallente Imperialist policies towards the Syndicate.

Would the Syndicate not have to resort to such bussiness deals with the Serpentis Corporation and the Angel Cartel. Placid would not be a haven for drug dealers and the Federations biggest problem in that aspect.

The Syndicate was formed from exiles who fought against the Imperialist policies of Gallente Prime. They where forced to live in stations, ship convoys and hidden colonies. Daily Concord, Gallente, Ammar, Minmitar raides and invasions forced them into a life of paranoia. They sought out Serpentis for protection of their assets.

I see the main problem with the SYndicate as, the lack of recognition of the main empires towards its territorial claims and respect for it's laws.

Should the Syndicate have been allowed to prosper. Different leaders would be running the show out there, and Narcotics wouldnt be an issue. Nor would vast amounts of wealth have been needed over the decades in fighting the Intaki Syndicate's bussiness deals.




 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only