Forum:Speakers' Corner

{| width="100%" style="background-color:#FFAA99"

Speakers' Corner regulations

 * 1) All Lovians, regardless of their status or function, may, at any time, speak publicly at Speakers’ Corner.
 * 2) Speakers’ Corner may not be used to spread feelings of hatred against somebody or something. No bad shall be spoken of anybody without reasonable cause and only through decent language.
 * 3) Speakers’ Corner is a public space where all laws of the Kingdom of Lovia apply.
 * 4) Speakers’ Corner has the right to remove speakers from the park when the speaker is considered to be violating either the laws of the Kingdom of Lovia or the Speakers’ Corner regulations.
 * }

Statement by HRH
Please, if you do wish to read this statement (it's quite important), then please read it entirely. 19:18, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Speech
Dear Lovians, I think we should change our country. Maybe with the old five, maybe not. But with non-neutral admins, we may not change it. I think there should be neutraller admins. Maybe many people not agree with this. But is it the reality:Lovian kingdomship is too centred on a elite, where only friends of the king are part of. I think we should change this. Making a better Lovia, without TOO MUCH influence for the old five. That is what i want. I think Lovia shouldnt be anarchy, but also not a monarchy.. I think that is the best for our nation. I feel we could modernize Lovia. I think we shouldnt trial people who create new country within Lovia. The second option is this: citizens should have the chance for wich Lovia they want to be part of. Old Five-lovia, Iron Guard-Lovia or Andy-Lovia. They should be able to also start a extra Lovia. I know this can be confusing but it is one of the few solutions. I hope Lovia can be once a great nation without the OF. Thanks for a nation, thanks for a population and for stability. Greets, Pierlot Temporary No Character 16:52, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Speechless; I don't get it, Lovia worked well in the past and according to me still does. Why can't we all just follow the laws, the democratic method? Sure, some change is needed, but why do we need to overthrow the monarchy and yell the place together with nasty claims of conspiracies ... What did I miss? 17:08, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know the laws look good, but according to my opinion, Lovia is becoming less good every day Temporary No Character 17:28, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, but don't you think that a proposal in Congress will achieve more than an all-out offensive against half the users? 17:32, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I might propose one. Temporary No Character 17:33, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I might support it. I too think that some crucial things should change, like the underused state and local levels that need some serious revaluation. Make sure not to be too radical, one step at a time  17:35, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Administration or bureaucracy?
Recently a poll was launched in the pub to ask our opinion on weather we should lose some admins and who would deserve becoming one. It is my opinion this question can be reduced to a simple self-reflection: do we want a site administration or a site bureaucracy? Two admins are named on the admin-off list. Most of the time they are not around and they have never used their admin rights. Taking away their 'rights' - what a poor word to describe this - or leaving things as they are would result in the same situation, right? Wrong! I do acknowledge that there are more admins than are really needed to make this wiki function, though masked by the fact that some of them are inactive. Making both admin-off could be a symbolic act, a gesture that signifies a change in the Lovian policy. We also have several capable people that do are around and should grant them a place in the site administration.

Finally, I would like to comment on the status of 'honorary admins' which was suggested on behalf of a non-active admin. This is under any conditions out of the question, several people already stated that we 'do have no nobility in Lovia' and I think we should keep it that way; admins are people with a task, a duty which itself can - and perhaps should - indeed be seen as an honor. This does however not imply that we can ignore the capabilities and availability of those we call 'admins'. We must keep in mind that the administration of this site is to be focused on its primary task, otherwise we will become a bureaucracy.

12:39, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * You sound reasonable. still i find it no shame to let the founder keep his rights. It includes no privileges, I hear, so it's only an outward sign. Nothing wrong with that? 12:56, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I do not really agree. We all respect Robin, but does he have to be admin for that? Personally I don't care but I do feel that becoming an admin must be accompanied by competence and activity. 12:16, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we ask Robin's opinion right away? --Lars 12:23, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that is a good idea! 12:24, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because he is inactive and won't respond anyways? I agree with Yuri. --Bucurestean 15:53, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wanna bet on it ? --Lars 16:54, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. But what has tyw7 to do with SPQ? --Bucurestean 16:56, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep digging man, keep digging... --Lars 17:07, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Until I find oil? --Bucurestean 17:09, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nooooo, water man, water, cause I'm thirsty --Lars 17:11, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here in this corner of Europe, enough water falls from the sky, so it's not necessary to dig, man, 'cause you'll only find mud, man. --Bucurestean 17:14, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mud ? --Lars 17:15, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mud, man. --Bucurestean 17:21, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mud? Mad is a better description! Just ask him and see what he answers.  09:12, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Fellow citizens
The last week of the elections has begun. It's not over yet, nothing is lost. Many things have happened this month, from small riots to communist and fascist recruitments. It's amazing to see what can happen in a free and democratic country that suddenly can become very instable. However democracy is dangerous, we surely do love it. I'm also glad to announce you that these elections are completely fair.

But I do want you, fellow citizens, to think about a couple of issues. It's amazing to see how many ideologies some people could have, voting for both left and right. Everyone has his or her freedom to do so, and I fully appreciate it. But what will happen to the country?

Please do remember the points of view of several parties. The Liberal Democrats and the Walden Libertarians are the only parties - you may think I'm proud of that but actually I'm really concerned about the future of Lovian politics - which do have a concrete programme with concrete points of view. That's why these parties came together and united, into one coalition.

Tell me, fellow editor, what do you prefer more: less CO2 and more money for the elderly? Be honest: you don't care! Because we want to edit on this wiki, we want every citizen to be equal and respected, every citizen to contribute and write articles because that's why we are here. Unfortunately it looks more like a struggle for more power.

The Liberals and Libertarians are very clear in this. Have you heard any parties talking about their future plans for this site? Even the Progressive Democrats, until now the largest party, has declared that their campaign was pretty weak. The communists seem to be agressive and only said to want to gain influence. Open your eyes, Lovian, because we should avoid what has happened to Wikistad, namely a civil war because of power and influence. You don't see what is happening out there? The communists are "recruiting" people to vote... and leave afterwards. We seem to be the only ones who reject these actions and exclude leftist and rightist extremists from rule.

I want you to think about real ideals like liberty and equality. Don't forget what this wiki is about. It's about editting. And the Liberals and the Libertarians seem to be the only ones who actually do care about that, how disappointing it may look.

Well, if you vote for this coalition of the Liberal Democrats and the Walden Libertarian Party, you vote: Pro-Monarchy, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Simplification
 * Democracy: Separate elections for Prime Minister
 * Democracy: Abolishment of non-democratic local regulations, like the huge transformation of Train Village lately.
 * Democracy: No automatic seat for the King in the Congress. He may become MOTC, only no Judge nor Prime Minister. He should be elected.
 * Democracy: The King shouldn't get an automatic position in the negotiations about the formation of the government. The formed government should be accepted by the Congress (+50%)
 * Democracy: More use of referenda, for example when a new admin is needed.
 * Simplification: Reduce the 4 layers (neighborhood, city/town, state, federal) of the governmental systems to 3 layers
 * Simplification: Abolishment of not used State Courts
 * Simplification: New elections when +50% of the Members of the Congress is inactive.
 * Monarchy: Full support and respect for the monarchy and the King.

Dear Lovian, please take the elections seriously. Many misuse the word "Change". If you do want to see some real change, better conditions on this wiki and more activity, you should consider a vote for the Liberal-Libertarian coalition and Prime Minister candidate Andy McCandless, the only Prime Minister candidate who has actually made public what he will do on this site. The only one who will not come with any disappointing surprises. A man of the people, a man you can count on.

--Bucurestean 14:33, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Bucu, is it possible to also include this:No more than one vote and and no-vote changing? Pierlot McCrooke 15:49, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not in our programme. --Bucurestean 15:51, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe talk about that with McCandless? Pierlot McCrooke 15:52, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, we will discuss all points and, if some wish so, come with new points if we will participate in the formation of the government. Now, 3 weeks after the beginning of the elections, it's not our main interest to change our programme, you see. Patience, my friend. --Bucurestean 15:55, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * May I ask how you plan to combine your love for democracy and freedom of participation with the exclusion from power for leftists and other (play-by-the-rules) extremists? 10:42, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't compose this campaign, but as the major coalition candidate, I would like to answer this question anyway. i personally think every party (regardless of their extremism) should get a full chance. However, we must try to protect our sacred democracy from its enemies within. What i am saying is this: Republicans should get a chance to ask for reform, and get it thru democracy, and the same applies to communists or people who support a minimal state. What we cannot allow, and i think i may say this as a representative of my coalition, are parties who wish to abolish democracy. because once democracy is abolished, no change can be made again, but be bloody revolutions. That is why we, the Liberals and Libertarians, wish to be very careful with extremists. 13:42, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all: the LCP is not comparable to the IGP, do not make the mistake to compare them! Second of all: the LCP may be a communist party but we will never (and I have said this a thousend times) ever violate democracy. We value the fundamental rights of Lovian society. We have always did and will always do so. Do not insult us. We are no danger and wish to contribute in a meaningful way. We are not fascists and not extremists and we support the monarchy as it is. Dr. Magnus 13:46, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems we are slipping into a violation of some democracy too safe the rest. Just allow everyone who respects the law speak in congress. Do you seriously believe anyone here will succeed in destroying democracy? Harold Freeman 13:48, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I believe the political views of Bucurestean are a danger to society. I believe him to be driven by his hatred for communism as a whole. He therefor hates the LCP and everything is stands for. No matter how often I try to explain our good intentions, he refuses to listen. That is why I am deeply concerned. Dr. Magnus 13:52, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure he didn't mean it this way. LD+WLP is not anti-democratical at all and we wish to create a pluralist and democratic platform, composed of all ideologies, within a democratic framework, of course. 13:54, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not, I don't have anything against communists in the Congress. But I am concerned about the circumstances, all the recruitments, why would one recruit people for his party? And by the way, I just said we, Liberals, could never govern this country together with communists and fascists. And I think that's logical: the differences are too big. --Bucurestean 13:57, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * That is very different of statements I read above. This coalition may not be an excuse to propagate the ideals of one as those of us all. Liberals respect differences! Harold Freeman 13:55, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see I've failed as a party leader then. You're the new one, you may decide what to do. --Bucurestean 13:58, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

There are no more fascists: they were all banned and McCrooke left the party. The IGP is no more active and has no congressmen. The LCP has only one, and probably no more then 4 by the next elections. That means we are not a majority and I don't think we will ever be. We have to rule together. We should not fight each other. Dr. Magnus 13:59, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe, this has to do something with it (?), The incident has also been published on 15th November 2009 in The Noble City Times --Lars Washington 14:03, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it does. But a man should be able to give his opinion. And indeed, I may have reacted a bit harsh back then. However, I do not wish this to affect my political career, and the LCP harbours no anti-US sentiments or viewpoints whatsoever. Dr. Magnus 14:08, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Walden
The Walden Libertarian Party invites all Lovians who feel a political engagement to consider membership of our group of Waldeners. I would like to summarize the most important reasons to join our movement; though everybody is free to decide for himself what is truly important. 10:02, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Walden is a libertarian party. We strive for reform and liberty. Unlike other parties, we are willing to compromise if that is the only way to bring reform. Also, we do not fear to work!
 * Walden is an environmentalist party. Most of us don't hug trees, but we do love our planet. That is why we support more attention for environmentalist issues.
 * Walden is a Home. Being with us, is like being at home. We are gentle with each other, and we're not pushy. Everybody is free - that is what libertarianism is about.
 * Walden is a growing political faction with great ooportunities. We are doing well in Congress and the Lovians do notice that. When Mid-term elections will be held, a Waldener will have a good chance at getting elected. With the support of the party and our fellow libertarians, liberals, environmentalists and progressives, Walden is ready to kick ass!
 * It's true. WLP is a great party to be in Martha Van Ghent 10:33, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Percival's little speech (Mid-Terms)

 * Some good reasoning you have there, but I don't completely agree. There is a difference between ideology (a not compromise-able truth which does not need to be based on proof) and a worldview (an interpretation of reality which we try to base on facts). Most people have the latter which is often very political in itself. 07:07, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I merely meant party-loyal ideology and dogma. This is not my point though: I didn't mean to call ideology a bad thing. My point was that I am pragmatic, liberal and able to compromise. Percival E. Galahad 07:10, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just making a point here; the negative effects of narrow education.  07:12, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Percival E. Galahad 07:13, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Republican Speech
My fellow countrymen!

This is your favourite politician and statesman speaking!

This time, the subject of my speech is very, very serious.

This speech, is about our monarch, king Dimitri I of Lovia. He has no power in our country, officially. But the reality, sadly, is very different.

Because our king has power. Very much power. For example, he appoints his friends on high positions. He gives them high positions in the country, in politcics and business. They are the chairmen in Lovia, the ministers, presidents, judges…

It will not be long before the king will start appointing his relatives… his relatives! His brothers, nephews, nieces, aunts and uncles… his in-laws. All of them. That is a sign of a dictatorship.

The king rules as a despot. You may not see it, but I do. I see it in everything he does. In the way he rules our country. He rules it with an iron fist. The opposition is brutally kicked in the ground. Forced to live in exile, or be blocked. They are very much prosecuted.

Only if you are good in the eyes of the king, you will have his favours. Otherwise, he will make your life hard. He does not do bad things often, but IF he does, he always gets away with them. His personal friend, the judge, makes sure of that.

This is all like medieval times. Do we live in medieval times? No! We live in 21th century. And Dimitri does not fit in this century. A monarchy does not fit in these days. Monarchy is awefully outdated.

You people may think you know how to run a country, but you do not. We all know what happens in Belgium; always cabinet crisises. And in Netherlands: always people attacking the House of Nassau. It only leads to trouble, and to oppression. And it costs very much mony. Too much, far too much. Are we willing to pay much more taxes then other countries? This high taxing system is officially because we are a socialist nation.

But that is not the truth! The truth is that it is all because it has to fund the royal family. Their cars, their chaffeurs, their personnel, their gardiners, their security agents… we, Lovians, we have to pay for all their saleries!

This is a horrible injustice! And it is I, Pierlot McCrooke, who has to stand up against these things…

Pierlot McCrooke 17:52, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

State Speech
Ladies en gentlemen, boys and girls!

This here is Pierlot McCrooke speaking, your countries greatest orator and statesman of all times, and your future president (mark my words ).

I want to speak with you, today, about my views on the state, and on how we will reform the state. And about the type of man I am, deep down inside. I have great plans, people, great plans! Sit back and listen in amazement! My plan is to change the state, our state, drastically! You may have heard about a country far away, which used to have a certain system called Kenson. This Kenson-system was a full democracy. It was entirely, 100% democratically.

In the system, everybody had the right to tell his or her opinion. Every single citizen in the nation, not just the MOTC’s. Because of this, the system was completely democratical. Everybody had the ability to say whatever he wanted to say, and have his voice and opinion heard by everyone. Is that not a great system, ladies and gentlemen? Does that not sound thrilling?

I am a great politician. And a great, great statesman. I have an enormous experience, for I have been a member of this site since 2007. I am, without a doubt, one of the most experienced users on this site. With many articles I have written, and villages I have set up and ruled, I can be seen as one of the most profilic writers of the website.

What I want for this site, is clearity! No back-door politics, no stabbing under water. But, as the old Dutch saying goes: jullie met open vizier tegemoet treden – to face you with my helmet open. Like a knight in shining armour, ladies and gentlemen! Can you see the picture? That is how you should look at me. As a knight in shining armour, a true hero of democracy. As your great and wonderful saviour.

I like to compare myself to William of Orange, William the Silent. He was silent for years. He never spoke a word. Always sitting around, silently… but as the years went by, he saw what the evil despot, the king of Spain, was doing. He saw the inquisition killing thousands of innocent people for being so-called heretics. And that was the point at which William said: enough! No more! And he, who always had been the loyal servant of his master, the King of Spain, became a fierce freedom fighter, a champion of the people! He grabbed his shield and sword, jumped in the saddle and rode to victory followed by thousands of soldiers. And he defeated the evil king, and he put an end to the tyranny!

That is what I will do! I will not grab weapons. But my voice will be my weapon! My mind will be my shield! And as God is my witness, I will make Lovia a better country! So that nobody can ever say, ever again, that Pierlot McCrooke is not a good citizen. Or that Pierlot McCrooke is not willing to fight for his country. For I am willing to do just that! So that within a thousand years after my death, children will still learn the name McCrooke at school. And they will repeat, endlessly, my timeless quote: one for all, and all for one!

Pierlot has left the building!

Pierlot McCrooke 18:31, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you were a sockie of Pierius's Bucurestean 18:39, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Impressive you've got your own speech writer like Obama :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:40, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha  Bucurestean 18:40, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * OWTB is right Pierlot McCrooke 18:43, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * How much do you pay 'm? Perhaps he could write a speech for me too :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:43, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * And me too!! Btw, I'm not right, you want to say there? :( Bucurestean 18:44, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Many dollars. I cant write a speech myself so i ask him to write a speech. BTW if you want his speeches you can contact pierius per mail Pierlot McCrooke 18:48, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * This speech would score high on the populism meter but I hear (almost) no reasonable arguments. You just yell fancy words. 07:12, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Walden! (video)
Video:Walden manifesto (Aug 6)
 * 11:31, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

There was a speeech here...
There was a speech here written by drabo but since it did not comply with SC rule two " Speakers’ Corner may not be used to spread feelings of hatred against somebody or something. No bad shall be spoken of anybody without reasonable cause and only through decent language. " Pielot (I was thinking) did rule four "Speakers’ Corner has the right to remove speakers from the park when the speaker is considered to be violating either the laws of the Kingdom of Lovia or the Speakers’ Corner regulations."  This was just to show people that somthing stupid was here.Thnx Peilot! Marcus Villanova WLP 17:27, August 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * How do I write double thumbs up in internetlanguage? Cause that is how I feel inside. And now I'm off, staaaaarving. --&#123;&#123;SUBST:User:Aesopos/HT}} 17:50, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Is this guy gone crazy? Dr. Magnus 18:59, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

A Non-Royal Governor for Sylvania?
Dear Lovians,

I hereby announce that I do not intend to run for Governor of my home state Sylvania. It has been a tradition for years that the ruling monarch is both Governor of Sylvania and Mayor of Noble City. Time has come, methinks, to break away from this tradition. Sylvania is a great state that might need the care of a fresh politician. Also, for democracy's sake, it sounds like a good idea not to hold more executive offices.

I would like to offer my fellow Sylvanians the chance to think about the Governorship of their home state.

I do not exclude the possibility of making myself eligible as Deputy Governor of this state, an office which does not hold any executive power according to the law. If so, I would really appreciate it if you supported my "opponent", the person who is running for Governor, the majority of the popular votes.

Sincerely,

PS: (@Yuri) I know I said the exact opposite yesterday, but I've changed my mind.
 * That's alright. You can't be everything can you.  07:34, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right . 07:38, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds democratic! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 22:59, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The unthinkable has become thinkable: we can now run for Gov of Sylvania =)) Martha Van Ghent 05:50, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * It always was thinkable, just not that doable. 06:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of influence, if you know the right people, and dimi knows everyone, it's a peace of cake JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  07:54, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know the right people Jon? Harold Freeman 08:01, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * No the left :p JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  10:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a royal will become governor, honoring tradition? BastardRoyale 12:25, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Governor
My fellow Lovian brothers & sisters, my comrades under the red flag, your friend and brother Bradly-Lashawn greets you all warmly and respectfully!

Our nation needs strong new governors, and Philip Bradly-Lashawn of the communist party is, by far, the best chance you can get. He is a descendent of Founding Father Sir John Lashawn, the son of the late Arthur III, nephew of our current monarch and Crusher of the Capitalist Beast. Comrades, brothers and sisters, countrymen, vote Bradly-Lashawn, because a vote for Bradly-Lashawn is a vote for socialism, patriotism, order, stability, loyalty and strength. Glorious times await this nation and a new Golden Age of prosperity will arise. We will have to work hard, but everything good comes at a price. If the road to victory and success is hard, victory and success, when finally achieved, is all the sweeter. Our brothers and sisters will have to work hard, side by side, and we will have unity and harmony, general universal equality and permanent stability.

With kind regards, your future governor and your loyal servant,


 * BastardRoyale 13:01, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * JON  THE DUDE   JOHNSON  13:57, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Socialism, okay, but patriotism? Order and stability? Loyalty and strength? That sounds the wrong kind of socialism to me. Why not a socialism of world citizens? Of democracy and understanding? 16:30, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but still pro  JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  17:52, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yuri is right, I'll vote CPL.nm (Becuse there my Friends ! and I like there views) but Loyalty Sterngth sounds like he was being Clear about what he wants. I know Philip and I know he's Socialist but I think he misspoke. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 19:04, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Villanova for govenor
Dear Lovia,


 * It has been very good in Lovia Latley, we need to have a govenor that won't just look at this as a job but as a role, a leader as a public servent. I will be running in Clymene with the Walden Party as my supporter. I'm glad to run against my competitors and will have fun doing so against such great people. As govenor I don't plan to just give up on Clymene, but give Clymene a boost and overall Lovia and help through these tough times. As govenor i'll help implement a tax plan to Help schools, Highways and the lower and middle class. I want to be your govenor and hope that you can trust in me as I do myself. I Love my state of Clymene and I want to be your govenor. Thank you -


 * From - Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]]
 * Good luck! 16:24, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as you know it'll be hard! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:25, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Knowing what's right
Again Hello People of Clymene and Lovia


 * I, Myself have been scared of the fact that our local system is really no more, but as Walden always says Simplfy Simply, The fact that we have no more local government is a good thing. We simplified to much though, We now need to implment a State Cabinet with positions depending on state or State Council with elected members to decide state issues. Like Towns, Speed Limit, State Taxes. This would make the govenors job actually do smothing. They would get to be an automatic member of the Council or Cabinet and would approve state laws and put them into affect. A deputy Govenor would be an automatic member but only put laws into effect when the govenor is away. To those who say "This will lead to succesion, turmoil!"


 * It won't, one we give the State Councils/Cabinets Very Limited Power to do only State involed things. An by doing so they couldn't succeed or make a cold war on other states. Also they could only make laws that comply with FedLaw and the consitiution.


 * To those who say "We don't have enough Active Members!" State Council/Cabinet size will depend on the state population and active members. And will grow as the state does. This way states can grow at there own rate.


 * I hope this was a convincing speech and such. I want you know that this a good way for Lovia.


 * Thank You and I hope you Elect me Govenor Of Clymene -


 * Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 14:52, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Seed limits? Is there a 'p' missing or will Walden collectivize the agricultural industry? 14:58, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay sorrry, I litterally LOLed as you pointed that out but seriously, do you agree with this? Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 15:00, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

One response
Some reactions: 15:34, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It cannot lead to succession (it's unconstitutional, so Court can ban these people).
 * It will not lead to turmoil, but it might cause tensions between the states, whereas we do not have these now. Governor elections already put a pressure on the concept of states and home states. Making states too political will give Governors elected as representatives on a party an incentive to turn ideological battles into state battles. I don't want that. Does Walden want that?
 * The states have power, though limited. All the things you talk about seem already possible to me. So what's the fuss about?
 * We don't have enough members in each state to make a difference with Congress. What will happen is this: the MOTCs will all get elected in one or two state councils. What then is the use of state council taking over some jurisdiction of Congress? That sounds more like Complicate! Complicate! to me.
 * It would indeed be nice to have a fully democratic, representative body on state level. Problem is that we have too little active citizens who are not yet in Congress, and that we would have to re-assign most duties and powers. Doing that requires lots of work. The current solution allows for some interpretation, but without causing major problems. (And if there would be, SC may intervene.)
 * This is indeed a good speech. I'm happy to see you actually care about politics. That's the right attitude. The thing is, I also actually care and I doubt whether it will make things better and more transparant.


 * It seems like it s a good idea and wouldn't complicate, we've simplified WAY to much! But it seems like there isn't much argument on this, but the fact we don't have alot of active members on my side page I say that there is about 17 active members. With three or four inactive/not really active members not really listed. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 15:38, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll show you:
 * this is simple:
 * People elect Congress. Congress decides on nearly all issues. This is 'legislative': Constitution and FedLaw.
 * People elect Gov/Dep Govs. Governors decide on the most local issues. The Gov is an 'executive'.
 * When in doubt, the Supreme Court solves the issue.
 * this is complicated:
 * People elect Congress. Congress decides on national issues.
 * People elect state councils, composed of the same people that are in Congress. State Councils decide on local and state issues. Their legislative input has to be voted. To be enshrined in the FedLaw, it must be voted by Congress, consisting of nearly the same people.
 * To achieve this, there must be a very strict line between national and state issues.
 * To solve issues, the Supreme Court must intervene. Because we empower the State Council much more, defining the line between national and state issues fades, and so the Court will have more work.
 * So. More work for the Court. Just as many people in six institutions instead of just one. Advantage? None, really. 15:46, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine so when were at 30 Active Users? Fine we'll decide this later? Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 15:49, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well of course, if there were hundred active users on this wiki, we would have to do some huge reforms to fit them in the system, you know. But there are only 10 to 20. And never in the history of this wiki have we seen more than 20 active users. So it seems the best idea to do something that fits that number :) 15:51, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine then, but it did seem like a good system. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 15:54, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not bad indeed. You know what, I have a proposal. "The Dude" Jon Johnson ) was talking about how are state level is paralyzed and all that. Of course it is, we still have to host elections. What if postponed this idea for a while, until after the elections and until the Governors and states had a chance to show what they were up to. We could then, if you still want it, re-discuss this thing and possibly think about a way to involve Governors in amending the FedLaw. Is that fine with you?  15:57, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand why you are afraid, this is democratic, this is safe, and it mobilizes the states! JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  15:59, September 5, 2010 (UTC)